WotS The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations [Archive]

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-22-2006, 21:20

My fellow senators, what is this violent attitude displayed by my esteemed collegae Tiberius ?

Should we not first look closer to home, to the rebellious Latins in the south in the ungrateful cities of Corfinium, Paestum and Rhegium, and the raiding Etruscans in the north in the vengeful cities of Arretium and Armenium, before we strike wildly and unpreparedly at the Greeks ? The Greeks are unwelcome visitors to the peninsula, I must agree, and eventually should and will be persuaded to leave the peninsula and return to their homeland one way or the other, but this is not our first priority.

Should we neglect our rebellious cousins and strike wildly at the Greeks ? Where will the troops come from, where shall the money come from to buy the weapons and armor ? Will we rely on the Gods to shower silver on us from the clouds to pay for all this ? When has rashness ever been the Roman policy ? Is this the diplomacy of a civilized people ? We have subjugated our neighbour city states Capua and Ancona, but only in self-defense and righteous retaliation, and have the Gods not smiled at us ? Has Mars not given us victory in battle ? I suspect Jupiter would avert his eyes from a people that strike out blindly in anger and our good fortune might flee.

So I say, take heed ! Let us avert the wrath of heaven and first strengthen our position by taking firm control of our rebelious neighbours, forming a strong army and making treaties and alliances with other nations. Let us offer peace to Pyrrhus and occupy our rebellious cities first. If Pyrrhus dares to trouble us then we will be justified in casting the Greeks out of Italy and powerful enough to do it !

I say we immediately gather all available troops and march south, occupying the cities of Corfinium, and next Paestum, before Pyrrhus can sense a weakness. We should also send an emmissary to Pyrrhus to ask for a ceasefire. Then we should leave a praetorian legion of troops in place to make sure that cunning warlord Pyrrhus does not suprise us while we look to the north. With luck Pyrrhus will strike westward instead at Rhegium and become entangled with the powerful Carthegians that live in Sicily. Meanwhile we should raise another praetorian legion and occupy the Etruscan cities of Armenium and Arretium. If the Greeks have still not bothered our cities we should raise yet a third praetorian legion to guard our northern borders against a suprise attack from the barbarians to our north while we march the first and second legion to our southern borders and send an ultimatum to Pyrrhus. Either he surrenders his colonies in Southern Italy or we will be forced to declare war. Strike when we are ready I say !

I second the motion to raise Quintus to the esteemed and elevated position of Consul, and to to ask him to lead our first and second legion to victory over the Latin rebels, and eventually, the Greeks. I also suggest the gifted and skilled Publius Laevnius to lead our third legion against the Etruscans. Meanwhile I suggest sending a diplomat east and a second one to the west to seek allies against Greece and trading partners.

shifty157

05-22-2006, 21:21

Please let us consider the tactics of the situation. We can talk all that we please about the Gauls and Pyrrhus but let us refer to our current geo-political knowledge upon the map so kindly provided.

We have two legions raised. One rests outside of Capua. The other outside of Ancona. These men are ready to march at a moment's notice. We also command various garrisons throughout our provinces that if called together and with minimal conscription can form a third legion. We must unite the disparate Italian states under our rule.

I propose immediately that we march our legion outside of Capua and reign in the citizens of Paestum who balk at our rule even as they face the army of Pyrrhus. Taking Paestum will require only a small expenditure of man power and we will reap the rewards of increased tax income and a larger citizenship from which to conscript our troops.

Pyrrhus if I interpret correctly will no doubt prefer to march on the more appealing Corfinium and bring it under his tyranny. Though better situated, the Corfinians are staunch in their honor and their pride and they will not yield to him easily though yield they will under such military weight. Though Corfinium will without doubt fall prey to Pyrrhus, it will take its toll upon his army. The seige will delay him and the assault upon the walls will weaken him.

Upon the conquering of Paestum, we will rest that legion and wait for Pyrrhus to finish his feud with the Corfinians. In the meantime we will send our legion stationed at the gates of Ancona north to bring the other Italian states under our banner and to prevent the Gauls from advancing closer to our own mother Rome. Arminium will be brought low first followed by Arretium if the Gauls have not already taken it.

We must draw forth all of our garrison forces and conscript new units to form a thrid legion at the port of Ancona. In this way, we will have two legions with which to combat Pyrrhus' advance and under good leadership he will be stopped.

These are my musings fellow senators. I believe them sound and well within our capabilities. Give me your faith and I can easily do what is nevessary to expand our borders in all directions.

Avicenna

05-22-2006, 21:31

Nay! Pyrrhus' destruction in the Italian countryside will take its toll if he is not stopped immediately. Allow him to take Corfinum and butcher innocent Italians? Never. Our taking of Paestum may bring us tax, yes, but it will not be an available troop centre till many years, as time is needed to tame the less civilised Italian upstarts who reside in Paestum. Sending Pyrrhus' army to Hades will only delay the conquest of slaves by a year at the most, but will secure our holdings and deny him the chance to strengthen his troops and hide behind the walls of Corfinum. Day by day he grows stronger, rallying more troops to his wretched cause: empire building. Personal glory. Tyranny over Italy. And you say we should seek peace with such a monster?

The Gauls, meanwhile, are divided and weak. Once we have secured the southern states of Italia, we should have no problem in taming the barbarians of the north. With their inferior quality of men and tactics, the barbarians should be able to muster up minimal garrisons in their cities, ready for Rome to assume command of. Those smelly barbarians will run from the sound of Roman steel, perfect prey for our green recruits. They do not need to be viewed as a threat in the present moment, let us focus our attention on that Greek from Epirus first.

GeneralHankerchief

05-22-2006, 21:33

Gentlemen, do you really think that two small legions are enough to discourage Pyrrhus from attacking further up the Peninsula? Pyrrhus of Eprius is an extremely wily general, and has elite troops to boot. No disrespect to Quintus, but I do not believe he can go toe-to-toe with our enemy at the current state of the legions.

Pyrrhus will have to go through the cities of Paestum and Corfinium before he hits us. I propose we send diplomats far and wide to sell trade rights to raise money. With this money, we can build up a third legion, which by then should be able to destroy Pyrrhus after his troops have been weakened by the taking of Paestum and Corfinium.

Gentlemen, it is clear to me that this threat can be dealt with by numbers alone. He is still far from us; we have time. When the time comes, our fine senator Quintus can lead the combined legions and crush Pyrrhus, driving him out of our homeland forever. We can then concentrate on making the entire peninsula under our control.

Tricky Lady

05-22-2006, 21:35

Fellow members of the Senate of the only true and glorious empire on earth, I gratefully thank you for taking your time to listen to my humble words. I shall try not to pollute these magnificent airs with empty words. Some of you have already turned their attention to the nation in the south of the Italian boot, but I tell you, my dear compatriotes, you are picking the wrong enemy.
Why should we fight an honourable and, surely, an equally sophisticated and intelligent nation such as the Epeirotes? Why should we turn our arms and gold against a potential trade partner? Why should we sacrifice the lives of young Romans? Why turn against a potential friend in the south when we have a far greater threat spying at us in the north? Whom of you dares to say he trusts the smelly barbarians who call themselves "Gauls"? These worthless rats are soiling the fields where our sons should live. And we should not tolerate that. These Gauls -I can barely pronounce this filthy word- should be driven back behind the migthy Alps, back to the dark forests. Back to where they belong. The wealthy lands in the North are Roman, and they should be claimed for the Glorious and Mighty Rome in the shortest time possible.
And what's more: this people can hardly field anything that can be called an army. WE'LL CRUSH THEM!!!

Glaucus

05-22-2006, 21:38

Before we continue to argue, let me point out some matters of fact, surely these cannot be disputed and therefore we can refer to them as a base of evidence.

1. Pyyrhus has a large army to the south. One legion alone will not be able to defeat him. Thus, the obvious conclusion is we need both of our current legions to move south and fight him. I disagree with the proposition that we forget our good Roman virtues and allow this Greek monster to impose his will on fellow Italians. We must seek battle with Pyyrhus now, before it is to late and he has more of a foothold then he already does.

2. Rome, our mother city, lies in the norhern part of our realm. While this is no immediate concern, it should not be ignored either. We should raise a Third Legion to take Arretrium, thus creacing a northern outpost, more taxes to contribute to our coffers, and a buffer zone between us and the unpredictable Gauls. Brother Tiberius, what is the difference if we have our legion sit here in Rome or move north to gain new lands. Either way it protects Rome, but sitting idly is illogical and unneccessary. Going north will help fund more armies, and more buildings for the honorary People of Rome and her Allies.

3. Though the Gods have gifted us with fine land and a fine river to do trade on, we should also remeber that there are other nations out there. They obviously have materials and goods we ourselves do not have, and we would be wise to exploit this. Let us get trade a agreements with Gaul, Carthage, and perhaps Illyria.

These three steps I feel are neccessary in order to place Rome up with the Gods, as protectors and trading partners with our neighbors.

ab cedo ab area
I yield the floor

Mount Suribachi

05-22-2006, 21:39

Conscript Fathers, we cannot let the threat posed by those effiminate Greeks to the south go un-punished! I agree with the proposal to send Quintus with a Legion to drive them back into the sea! As senior Consul, it is clealry his duty and his right to lead the army in battle. I see that our armies are lacking in Triarii, I am sure that many of our veterans would jump at the chance to re-enlist and serve under Quintus in order to defend their homes and families.

Perhaps we could also look to ally ourselves with the Ptolemites in the land of Egypt, they too are at war with the Greeks. The enemy of my enemy is surely my friend?

But do we really need to raise a 3rd Legion? Can we afford a 3rd Legion? I would rather see that we stick with our 2 Legions, one to protect Rome from raids by Italian rebels and Barbarians, another to attack Pyrrhus. If we were to make peace with the Gauls, we would be safe from their raiding as they would look for easy pickings elsewhere. I say no to a 3rd Legion! Who will pay for it? Who will man our farms once this 3rd Legion is formed at sat around doing nothing but draining the Treasury?

Avicenna

05-22-2006, 21:42

Why attack the Greeks we ask? Why, my lady, because they have the cheek to land on Italia in hopes of carving out an Empire. War has been declared, and we would seem to be cowards to then retreat in face of Pyrrhus. The Gauls, as I have said before, are not an immediate threat. The rebellious cities of Arretium and Ariminium are more of a force than them, which is why we must wait. Wait for the right moment, when the Gauls have taken the cities for us. Wait until they are weakly defended. Wait until the time is right, and then pounce. The filthy Gauls will then be forever banished from lovely Italia, never to be a threat again. But, meanwhile, the Pyrrhic forces are gaining strength, more and more are gearing up for the conquest of Rome. Why not learn a lesson from them? We should gear up for the conquest of Graecia. I will not allow our honour and image to be stained by suing for peace like a scared baby. Roman honour must prevail!

Senator Glaucus: Our third legion shall take Paestum and Corfinium if you insist, but fighting the Gauls at their full strength seems foolish to me.

Senator Suribachi: Why, the conquest of Paestum and Corfinium of course! That, and the ever advancing cities of the Republic, which will certainly fill our coffers by the next decade if managed efficiently and taxed to the maximum.

Dutch_guy

05-22-2006, 21:45

Members of the senate,

I agree with senator Tiberius that Pyrrus must be stopt now, while he is isolated from his homeland and has no chance of getting any re enforcements any time soon.

I trust that our consul has the needed skill to destroy Pyrrus, even with the moderate amount of troops we have at the moment.

Also I deem it necessary that we save our Italian brothers - the Corfinians - from Greek tyranny which will surely befall them if we do not act !

We must send a message to all in the known world, we do not tolerate Barbarians on our lands !

The Pyrric threat is our current problem, we must deal with this as soon as possible, even if it requires to assemble more soldiers.

Mars is with us fellow senators, Jupiter is watching, let's not let them down !

:balloon2:

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-22-2006, 21:48

I most strongly protest against the suggestions to abandon our brothers of the Latin Confederation. Yes, they may be rebellious now, but they are still our kinsfolk. What will our citizens think ? If we attack immediately, we can beat Pyrrhus to Corfinium, his obvious next target on his vile conquest. With the city occupied and all our forces concentrated next to it, Pyrrhus will not dare attack us and while he stands confused we can send a single legion to occupy Paestum. Then we can start to build up enough strengh to bring the warlord to his knees. I only regret that we will be unable to save our kinsmen in Rhegium by my battle strategy outlined earlier.

Dutch_guy

05-22-2006, 21:53

I, my fellow countryman, am not in favour of abandoning our Corfinian Kinsfolk.

I suggest to launch a ...what's the word...ah .. Pre-emptive strike on Pyrrus, before he can harm our Latin Brothers.

We must intervene now we have the chance, I - and I'm sure our consul agrees - couldn't live with myself knowing that my latin brothers are in danger of being slaughtered and oppressed !

A fate that is set for them with Pyrrus at their gates !

:balloon2:

Avicenna

05-22-2006, 21:56

To save yourself from these needless worries, just destroy Pyrrhus in one swift stroke. Then, we can worry about the liberation of rebel cities and the Greek holdings in Croton and Tarentum. Our deliberate, decisive destruction of Pyrrhus will surely set an example to other powers, proving ourselves worthy as being descendants of Mars himself. We will also be the undeniable masters of Italia once his body is fed to the dogs, and the rest of the Greeks in Italia eradicated. Once the Greek military presence is no more, the city of Rhegion will be safe from their vile influence.

GeneralHankerchief

05-22-2006, 21:56

What good will saving our Latin brothers be if we cannot protect them forever? Surely it is not better that they suffer under tyrant rule and then be under our benevolent arm for the rest of the world than under our rule for a few years until taken over by Pyrrhus?

And what will there be to farm if we don't raise a third legion? If we want to kick Pyrrhus out, surely we must do it right. If we do not, then how will one legion be able to finish this false king off if two could not? For the safety of Rome, we must send all three legions in defense of the southern half of the Peninsula. Our core territories matter the most. Everything else- the Latin states in the South, the Gauls in the north- is secondary.

And Senator Tiberius, isn't what you're proposing overkill? Surely the Greeks will be disenchanted with the prospect of conquering after their best general in fifty years is dead? No, once Pyrrhus is eliminated we should pursue good relations with them. They are a civilized people, after all. Once Italia is ours, we can concentrate on our true expansion direction- into Europe.

shifty157

05-22-2006, 21:58

I agree GeneralHankerchief

Fellow Senators you fail to realize that we do not have the force to take Corfinium with a single legion. We would have to devote both standing legions to the taking of this city and the subsequent battle would leave us severely weakened and easy prey to Pyrrhus' large army. Let the Corfinians fall for their pride and we will liberate them in short order. Let the Corfinians dull Pyrrhus' sword and we will be better for it. These are of course our Italian couuntrymen but they are not Romans and they disdain our rule and friendship. We owe them no favor.

We need a buffer to our North to protect Rome. Taking these provinces would also help to raise our taxes and allow us to assimilate the peoples sooner. Some wonder where the money for a third legion will come from. It will come from the taking of these two provicnes to our north.

Avicenna

05-22-2006, 22:01

Europe? No, they are merely lands of barbarians. The stinking, dense forests of Europe will open few trade routes, and the lack of resources will do us no good. The Mediterranean is the key to success. The state that controls the Mediterranean, can buy off any potential enemies. Our primary goal should be establishment of trade routes when my plan of Roman hegemony in Italia has been executed, and then raise a fourth Legion to strike at Carthage. Four simeltaneous attacks at Messene, Agrigento, Corsica and Sardinia will without doubt make the Carthaginians lose their financial advantage, while filling up our coffers. The sea is the road to power, fellow Romans.

Goodnight.

Dutch_guy

05-22-2006, 22:02

Senator Hankerchief,

That is why we must destroy Pyrrus now, so the Corfinians, and all the other threatenend latin brothers will be save forever. Dethroning the current rebel leaders of those cities would cause losses on our side, good soldiers who could have fought the tyrant Pyrrus. After Pyrrus is dead, his head sent to Rome, we will concentrate on bringing South Italia under our benevolent rule.

To achieve that, Pyrrus has to go.

I deem our starting legions fir for that task, with Mars backing our every move Pyrrus won't stand a chance.

Again, so it seems, I agree with senator Tiberius.

Now this senator needs his sleep, and shall call it a day.

:balloon2:

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-22-2006, 22:03

I am glad I misinterpreted my noble collegae. We only seem to disagree in whether we should attack Pyrrhus' army or try to fend him off without bloodshed but with intimidation.
While I completely agree the Greek colonies must submit to our preordained rule an immediate battle with that mighty army might leaven us weakened and prey to our other neighbours. Altough I am confident that Quintus martial prowess would give us victory, it might cost us the war. Where will the troops come from to continue the campaign against the Greeks ? The Greeks have a powerful confederation and might easily send another army from their mainland within a year which we would be unable to oppose with the remnants of our own army. Dare we gamble with our nation's existence like that ? I'll give you the floor to reflect on this, my lords.

shifty157

05-22-2006, 22:12

It is unbelievably unwise to assault Corfinium. It is too powerful and will require too many troops and leave us too weakened. Let Pyrrhus instead knock at its gates and give us the upper hand with two fresh legions in position to flank his army.

Glaucus

05-22-2006, 22:26

Fellow Senators, think!

We have 4 options on how to deal with the Greeks

1) We can sit and do nothing. Very unRoman and cowardly. Thats out

2) We can give Pyrrhus battle in the field before he has time to react. We can send both legions.

3) We can allow Pyrrhus to let his men die on the walls of our Latin brothers. Where is our honor then? We must help them and give them good Roman rule, not allow them to be terrorized by Greeks.

4) We can go quickly and attack the Rebel towns, then wait while Pyrrhus attacks our walls.

We must decide on one of these, I think the forth option is best, since our Roman legions will surely win against any opponent in the concentrated street fighting.

ab cedo ab area
I yield the floor

Mount Suribachi

05-22-2006, 22:28

Conscript fathers, what is all this talk of far-away conquests??? Do my ears deceive me? Wars of expansion, wars of aggression, talk of "pre-emptive strikes" from Europa to Africa! What is this madness? Since when was this the Roman way?

We should concentrate on defending our own homelands, on defeating those who would start wars of aggression against us, defeating Pyrrhus and his army will bring death and glory enough for all of us.

Defeating foreign aggressors and taming our rebellious cousins next door is one thing, but it seems some of my noble brothers within this august house are already planning foreign conquests in far-away lands, perhaps they woud like to set themselves up as some self-styled Pyrrhus of Rome!!!

I tell you conscript Fathers, I want no part of it!! No part of it!!

I bid you goodnight.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-22-2006, 22:34

While I appreciate my collegae Glaucus strength of feeling for our latin brothers, I would think it most unwise to fight phalanxes and elephants in the narrow streets of corfinium. Our army's strength lies in mobility and tactics on open terrain. So I say we occupy corfinium and then meet Pyrrhus in the field where our men can fight to their best effect. With this final tought I will leave this noble house for this evening.

flyd

05-22-2006, 22:58

What many of my fellow senators fail to realize is that Pyrrhus, by his presence, insults our great republic. How do you suppose this situation appears to other nations? It appears as if any fool, even from an insignificant country such as Epirus, can come to Italy, take what he wants, and threaten Rome. Is that the message we want to send? If Epirus can do it, what's to stop Carthage? We appear weak!

To even have heated debate about this Pyrrhus is dishonorable! The course of action is obvious. We must, immediately, with no delay, attack and defeat the army that threatens Rome, and even more importantly, we must kill Pyrrhus on the field of battle. This would send a warning to anyone else who may have interests in Italy, and would ensure that we would not be bothered by this Pyrrhus again. After that, we may debate about what to do, but our first action is clear.

econ21

05-22-2006, 23:51

SENATE SPEAKER: Gentlemen! Gentlemen! These deliberations do you great credit! The range and depth of your wisdom is, in fact, quite overwhelming to a humble person such as myself. By all means, continue with these stirring speeches. But I would, if I may, point out one or two mundane procedural matters.

In this session, you have two great tasks. The first is to elect the First Consul who will lead Rome through the current crisis and for the next five years. As yet, we have three candidates - econ21, DDW and flydude - although their precise identities will only be revealed on Tuesday 6pm UK time. In due course, they will present manifestoes posted here, on the Senate floor. These manifestoes will draw - no doubt - on the wisdom revealed through your deliberations. At that time, I would advise you to take the opportunity provided by this floor to question them and demand satisfaction on the matters that most concern you. Based on their responses, you may then make an informed decision when you cast your vote.

The other great task is less straightforward. You have in you the power to pass motions that will bind the First Consul to whatever acts you direct. Now, granted when in office, he may seek to escape whatever binds you place upon him. But if so, there may be reckoning when he returns here in his third year to account for his progress. On this issue of motions, I have three points to make.

The first is cautionary. Do you need to bind our leader? To deprive him of his freedom to react to events? Think carefully on this. Your speeches may guide him. But your motions will constrain him.

The second point concerns the subject of such motions. We can broadly distinguish three key areas: diplomatic; economic; and military. On diplomacy, the First Consul must come to the Senate first to seek approval for declarations of war, ceasefires and alliances (trade rights he may seek as he wishes). It may be a benefit to our diplomats if you give advance authorisation to specific diplomatic actions, so the ground can be prepared well in advance. On the economy, it may be useful to set broad priorities - what does the Republic need: more troops or more investment in our trade, ports and road? On military motions, we may propose campaigns in specific sectors.

My third and final point is purely procedural. Your words are so powerful that I fear on occasion, they may overwhelm me. May I request that you present motions in writing, using the following format:

MOTION: This house proposes X,Y and Z

Following the format of this script - the emboldening, the italics etc - will greatly assist the scribes in arranging the relevant votes. Keeping the motions simple - ideally one sentence long - will assist them in drawing up composite motions and amalgamating related proposals.

From the debate so far, I can identify two motions that have been explicitly seconded:

MOTION 1: This house proposes that Quintus be given command of an army to unite southern Italy, by destroying Pyrrhus's army and then assuming control of the towns in the south.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconders: Glaucus, DDW

MOTION 2: This house proposes raising a Third Legion.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconder: Dutch_guy

I apologise if my scribes have reduce the beauty and subtlety of your fine words into such simple motions. If their form of words is unacceptable, proposers may withdraw the motions and substitute more carefully drafted ones.

The heated debates on wider issues than these two motions may in due course be distilled into further motions. There is no urgency in presenting such motions. Let the free debate continue in the hope of reaching consensus. The final deadline for motions to be floored is Wednesday 6pm UK time. And again remember - much of your wise advice may best be presented as guidance for our First Consul, rather than binding motions.

TinCow

05-23-2006, 00:33

Conscript fathers, I vote in the affirmative on both motions and I urge you to do the same!

On the first motion, it is clear to all with sense that the Greek incursion onto Italian soil cannot be tolerated! Pyrrhus is a tyrant and will enslave Italian and Roman alike if he is not confronted. He must be dealt with immediately, without hesitation. Not only will this free Rome from the threat of foreign invasion from the south, but it will also demonstrate Roman honor and justice to our Italian neighbors. Perhaps after such a display of unilateral goodwill, they will join in a confederation with our glorious state. If not, well... there are other means of gaining their support.

On the second motion, I say it is the DUTY of every Senator to vote in favor. Our legions are mighty, but they are few. It will take all our current strength, and then some, to defeat the Greeks. We may take great losses in such a battle. Imagine, fellow Senators, a victory against Pyrrhus, but one in which our brave legions are nearly destroyed, incapable of sustaining a further struggle. I cannot even begin to imagine what such a thing would be called, but I know I do not want it! We must be strong, both to ensure victory and to ensure that that victory is decisive. Not only must we win, we must emerge strong and ready for what awaits us. Raise a third legion? We should raise a third, a fourth and a fifth! We should call upon our Italian allies in Capua and Ancona to provide auxiliaries as well! Let them demonstrate their loyalty to the alliance we have formed. However, such measures go beyond the scope of this vote. Once this one has passed, as I am sure it will, perhaps then we can discuss an even greater expansion.

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 00:56

Wow, fellow Senators, you sure talk a lot. Forgive me for joining such an advanced session so late, but I fear these matters are urgent enough for me to break my silence and my reclusion in the villa and occupy the seat my forefathers left me.

I second the second motion.

We need an army. I also believe that Pyrrus is not such an immediate threat, and that a legion should be sent south to dissuade him from entering roman soil, but let him turn his attention to the barbarian cities in the south: For our mighty soldiers it makes no difference fighting epeirotes or barbarians on the walls, and they will weaken each other in the mutual struggle.

I propose sending out Consul to annex the cities of Ariminium - a natural port and farmaland - and Arretium to the North to secure the access to Rome, and deny them from the destruction of the Gauls. With whom, I believe we whould make peace for now, until our III legion is raised. Then, we shall drive them north of the Rubicon.

Trade should be established with Carthage, Makedonia (a rival to Pyrrus in his motherland), and our other neighbours.

I believe I said enough, and our venerable president is beginning to doze off, so I will occupy my seat again, and let minds that like their responsibilities speak up.

GeneralHankerchief

05-23-2006, 01:35

It seems that the majority of the Senate does not share my thoughts about sending all three legions against Pyrrhus. I respectfully defer to them, and vote Aye on both motions of Tiberius. The threat is indeed imminent.

I just hope that Quintus, or whoever the commander of the first two legions may be, is up to the task. Mars be with him.

econ21

05-23-2006, 01:41

[SENATE SPEAKER]: By Jove, is that the time? I must find my deputy to take over this session....

Just a reminder, esteemed Senators. We have two formal motions on the table and others may be proposed until 6pm Wednesday UK time.

Formal voting will start after that time, using some voting procedures my scribes have yet to devise. Strange fellows, those scribes ... they keep wittering about "hanging chads" and other gibberish...

GeneralHankerchief

05-23-2006, 01:47

Aha. Well, in that case, my dear Speaker, let me indeed test the waters and retract my votes, since they mean nothing anyway.

Counter-motion: This house approves of the two motions made by Tiberius, but proposes that all three legions be sent to Southern Italia to combat Pyrrhus.

We protect the northen frontier by diplomacy, and create good relations with as many peoples as we can.

TinCow

05-23-2006, 01:56

Apologies Speaker, I was been praying at the Shrine of Bacchus this afternoon and I fear the formal... er... rituals may have resulted in a slight mental lapse.

It is a good thing that formal motions may still be proposed, though, for I have one that is of the utmost importance to our great city. This morning, as I was walking around Rome, admiring the wonders of civilized life, I suddenly realized that we lack formal institutions of education! Can you imagine? A people as great as us, with the prospects of rapid expansion and armed conflict looming, yet we have no methods of training the young in the ways of true Roman life! Are we to send uneducated farmers to lead our armies? Shall Rome itself be governed by illiterate prostitutes?

It is not enough to deal with the problems of today, we must also plan for the problems of tomorrow. We must invest in the future now, before it is too late! I propose that within the first year of the approaching Consulate, funds MUST be allocated for the construction of an Academy in Rome itself.

Motion 4: This house requires that construction of an Academy begin in Rome within one year.

GeneralHankerchief

05-23-2006, 01:58

TinCow's motion is seconded. I think that his arguments need no elaboration.

flyd

05-23-2006, 02:09

Be cautious, Senator. You wouldn't want to start building your academy only to have it burned down by the Greek. Rome is under threat. While having an academy is important, it is not urgent. What little funds we have must, regrettably, at this time be allocated to the raising of the proposed III Legion, and other military projects deemed necessary for the very survival of Rome!

It is for those reasons that I will vote against TinCow's motion, and encourage all others to do the same.

We may, and should, build an academy when the danger to Rome has passed.

Lord Winter

05-23-2006, 02:18

I second motion 1, 3(GeneralHankerchief's) and motion 4(tincows). Also my fellow Romans i proposes that we seek trade rights with all neutral powers. The Great legions of the republic must be financed.

Motion 5 This house requires that trade rights be established with the regional powers (including Gaul, Carthage, Macedon) in the next two years and steps should be taken to contact all other powers with the goal of trading and spreading roman culture to the whole of the mediterranean within 15 years.

shifty157

05-23-2006, 02:47

I support motions 1 and 2.

I do not support motion 4 as there are precious little funds to divert to an academy.

I would like to ammend motion number 5 to lengthen the period of time given to 4 years as I do not think 2 years will be enough with a single diplomat and I do not believe it is possible to train a second diplomat at this time.

I propose that we place a current standing legion under the command of Tiberius Coruncanius (governor of Ancona) to march north and unite the Italian states of Arretium and Arminium under the Roman flag.

TinCow

05-23-2006, 03:31

Fellow Citizens, I understand your concern when it comes to funding an Academy, but it is not my intention that our war efforts should suffer as the result of such an expenditure. I have funded a financial study out of my own pocket and the results have been as follows.

Given a normal tax rate, seasonal income to the Treasury will be an estimated 3,118. If high tax rates were imposed, seasonal income would be 3,636. With a normal tax rate, this means that the Roman treasury would stand at 18,472 at the end of the first year; 20,544 with a high tax rate. Even if Rome and all her allies recruited men constantly for the legions (4 Hastati, 4 Principes, 2 Triarii) this would only amount to 5,140 over the next year. This will be only one quarter of the Republic's Treasury!

I respect my fellow Senators' wishes to prioritize funds for the forthcoming conflict, but I assert to this august body that we have more than enough income to allow for both. Shall we simply store this excess amount forever? Nay! I know that we all expect a Consular construction program to further development both in Rome itself and in the Allied states. All I am proposing is that an Academy be the first priority when the funds are available. I assert to you that such funds will be available and that such an expenditure will not interfere with raising more Legions in service to Rome.

Vote in favor of the Academy motion. The sooner our children are educated, the better the prospects for our future. Need I remind you that several Senators in this very forum have children nearing the age of schooling? Will you vote to educate them in the fields? Shall they learn to plow, or govern? Do not forsake the future of the Republic for the sake of a few dinarii!

Ignoramus

05-23-2006, 04:20

I second the following motions:

MOTION 1: This house proposes that Quintus be given command of an army to unite southern Italy, by destroying Pyrrhus's army and then assuming control of the towns in the south.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconders: Glaucus, DDW

MOTION 2: This house proposes raising a Third Legion.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconder: Dutch_guy

MOTION 5: This house requires that trade rights be established with the regional powers (including Gaul, Carthage, Macedon) in the next two years and steps should be taken to contact all other powers with the goal of trading and spreading roman culture to the whole of the mediterranean within 15 years.
Proposer: Destroyer of Hope.

I agree to everything there except this: "trade rights be established with the regional powers (including Gaul"

MOTION 7: This house proposes that the third legion takes Arminium and Arretium, and that one of the two southern legions also takes Messena.

Noble Senators, what a waste of the Republic's funds. To build an Academy is far less important that securing our borders. Once Pyrrhus has been defeated, Messena MUST be taken, lest the might of Carthage controls all of Sicily.

I support trade with Carthage and Macedon, but not Gaul. Would civilized Rome trade with barbarians? Do you not remember how in the year 395, they sacked our beloved Rome? These desecrators of culture do not deserved to be traded with.

econ21

05-23-2006, 07:41

SENATE SPEAKER: Salve, Gentlemen! I see from my scribes that your over-night session has been productive. They have compiled a list of your motions and have posted it at the entrance to the Senate. Some still require seconders.

May I suggest that proposers are free to to withdraw or ammend their motions in the light of debates here. This might help reduce the number of votes I ... I mean my poor scribes ... must arrange. Specifically, Senator DDW, do you accept the proposed amendments to raise the length for seeking trade rights in motion 5 from 2 to 4 years and to exclude Gaul?

By Jove, has the Deputy Speaker fallen asleep?! Wake up, man! The sun has risen!

Now, let me see. What's this note from the scribes? Tut tut tut. They say some of you fine gentlemen, in your anxiety to protect Rome, have forgotten to format your proposed bills in the proper way. Please write MOTION #: Whatever... and do not forget the emboldening, italics... By Jove, have my scribes nothing better to do that whitter on about such things! Pyrrhus threatens Rome and they focus on fonts! Mr Deputy Speaker! Are you awake now, man? Good, well on your way to breakfast, give those scribes a tongue-lashing from me, will you?

Now gentlemen, back to the debates!

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 07:52

I second the view of Senator Ignoramus. Those Gauls should not be allowed to get their greedy hands onto our precious goods, to receive only filthy barbarian trinkets in return.

I propose that our economic strength be built up. An academy? We do not need that yet. There is plenty of time before our children grow up, fellow senators! Before then, what would it be for? Plebs? Plebs do not need an education, much less a state-funded one. All the plebs need to learn is to obey. Now, we need a strong economy to fund out military needs. We have enemies all around us: the Carthaginians may seem friendly, but are our sworn enemies. The Gauls... what is there to say that you honourable men do not know already? Those stinking barbarians will not be peaceful for long. The Greeks. Why, we have already decided to go to war with them! Even if we decided against it, those treacherous men are sure to attack Roman holdings with the army they have mustered. No, there are too many. We Romans are strong. We must rely on ourselves, not trade with others. What if we are at war on three fronts? Then we shall find ourselves with no friends and little trade. Our trade network must be built up from within, not from without.

Motion #6: As for our current military ambitions. I propose that we use the third legion as a defensive army, or to take the rebellious states to our South. The Northern states are wild Etruscans, and could do with a bit of warring with the Gauls. The Gauls will teach them obedience, and we shall liberate them in all our glory, becoming the saviours of the Etruscans. Once they are obedient, we shall be able to free up Legio III to deal with those Gallic troublemakers.

Ignoramus

05-23-2006, 08:59

I disagree, Senator Tiberius, what if those Gallic barbarians took Etruia first? Rome would be threatened, and a Gallic horde would be at the gates of Rome. No, we must secure the north.

Mount Suribachi

05-23-2006, 09:47

Good morning Conscript Fathers, the sun is shining bright and clear!

Once again I see that some of us are getting ahead of ourselves! The immediate threat is Pyrrhus! Everything is irrelevant right now - we barely have the strength to fight the Greek incursion, yet still some of you talk of going to war with a super-power like Carthage, or taking on the Barbarian hordes.

We are at war with Greece, so let us concentrate on the prosecution of that war until we are at peace with the Greeks. That may come several ways - they may come on their knees to us begging for mercy; they may accept OUR peace terms; or we will simply destroy them. But this war may be long and bloody, who knows who long it might take or how much it might cost?

As for raising troops - do not get me wrong conscript fathers, I am in favour of recruiting more soldiers, did I not say earlier in the debate that we should be looking to put veterans under arms as we currently have not a single cohort of triarii? BUT, raise a 3rd Legion? Senators, if we were to bring together all our troops under arms we would barely have enough to form one full Legion! Before we can even think of raising a 3rd Legion we must surely have 2 full-strength Legions. I agree with Senator TinCow, we must levy troops from our Italian allies to put flesh on the bare bones of our Legions.

Finally, I agree that we must build an Academy in Rome as soon as funds are available, our young men will be sorely lacking in edumacation without one.

econ21

05-23-2006, 09:58

[SENATE SPEAKER]:The scribes have asked for a clarification: Senator Tiberius - there is already an alternative MOTION 6 listed at the Senate entrance. That latter motion seems to overlap considerably with your words. Perhaps you and Senator shifty157 could agree a revised motion?

Apologies for the interruption - back to war ... err, I mean debate.

Oh, what is now, you foolish scribe? WHAT!?! Senator shifty157 declared himself candidate for First Consul and you forgot to put his name on the list!?! Very well, very well. No harm done, I suppose. Sincere apologies to the good Senator, and to the Senate Librarian, for misinforming him. There are now FOUR declared candidates for first consul - econ21, FLYdude, DDW and shifty157. Nominations will close tonight at 6pm.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 10:37

Honoured Speaker,
After solemn contemplation on the deliberations I accept the proposed amendments to raise the length for seeking trade rights in Motion #5 from 2 to 4 years and to exclude Gaul.

econ21

05-23-2006, 10:47

SENATE SPEAKER: Very good, Senator DDW - the scribes have amended the motion accordingly and Senator Ignoramus has been recording as seconding the motion.

The scribes have informed me that they have finalised the means of voting for motions, but that regrettably it will not be possible to vote on amendments. That means any amendments must be decided by the consent of the original motion proposer or, if rejected, should be formulated as rival motions.

The scribes also note that the voting procedures mean that it is logically possible for the Senate to approve two mutually exclusive motions. The paradox of voting, I believe the Greeks call it. Be wary of this, good Senators, for if the First Consul is given two incompatible directives, he will be more than justified in ignoring both!

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 11:19

I beg the senate's pardon by filling up their valuable time by proposing yet more motions for their learned consideration, but I find the current motions on the table do not encapsulate my ideas fully.

Thus I propose the following motions :

MOTION #8: This house approves of motions 1 and 2, but proposes that the third legion should be send north under the command of Tiberius Coruncanius (governor of Ancona) to invest Arretium and Armenium and guard our northern borders.

This differs from MOTION #6 in that we use our third legion instead of a current standing legion. I feel our first and second legion are needed immediately to confront Pyrrhus. A small, but critical enough difference for me to submit this new proposal.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 11:26

As stated before, my colleagues, we do not have sufficient strength to fight both the Gauls and the Greeks. When we take the Northern rebel states, the Gauls will surely see a chance to snatch them up, as a legion is considerably weaker than the two rebel armies combined.

Senator Suribachi: A legion is composed of nought but half of the full strength of an army. Raising a third legion should hardly put a strain on our finances. This legion should take advantage of the weakened Gauls, when they have depleted their armies at the walls of Arretium and Ariminium.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 11:32

My lords, one true Roman is worth 10 barbarians at least ! I say our third legion should be more than sufficient to keep the Gauls at bay should they choose to invade from the north.

econ21

05-23-2006, 11:45

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Noble gentlemen, if I may interject! Motions 6, 7 and 8 all seem rather similar and none has yet been seconded. May I suggest that the proposers work together to revise or drop their motions so that we are left with one or two that are seconded and are clearly alternatives?

It might also assist if motions be kept as simple as possible (e.g. no need to mention Messina if the issue is whether to attack the two rebel towns on our northern borders).

Ignoramus

05-23-2006, 12:00

After due consideration here is the ammended MOTION #7:

MOTION #7 This house proposes that the third legion takes Arretium in order to provide a buffer agianst Rome.

This change is that Arminium is left alone.

econ21

05-23-2006, 12:16

A legion is composed of nought but half of the full strength of an army.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: On a point of clarification, being something of a dabbler in military matters myself, I ask Senators to refer to my notes on historical armies posted in another place.

It reads:

(a) Full stack Consular armies - 2 legions + 2 alae
2 hastati, 2 principes, 2 velites, 1 triarii, 1 funditore, 1 equites, 1 general
+ 10 assorted allies (one slot can be a second general, a tribune).

(b) Half stack Praetorian armies - 1 legion +1 alae
1 hastati, 1 principes, 1 velites, 1 general, and 1 of either triarii, equites or funditore
+5 allies

So technically a "legion" is one cohort of hastati, one of principes, one of velites, one general and one of unit either triarii, equites or funditores.

Please note that by our conventions, if we plan to form proper armies, we are likely to have to call upon our allies for assistance before we can take more true Romans from their peacetime duties. However, given that we currently lack either funditores or triarii, giving priority to their recruitment would be not only admissible but advisable.

Apologies, dear Senators, I am over-indulging in military minutae. Let us abide by the above military conventions, but then leave remaining details of army composition to the First Consul. We do not need to tell him how sharp his swords should be.

TinCow

05-23-2006, 12:20

I will second Motions 6, 7 & 8. I am not sure which of these motions I personally agree with, but I would like to hear further debate on the matter. Therefore I second them, to allow a proper hearing before this body.

It seems to me that Motions 6, 7 and 8 are very similar in nature, but deal with three crucial differences in the same general topic. All three propose to use the newly raised Third Legion to protect Rome's northern boundry, the question is how this boundry should be guarded. For ease of understanding for the Senate, the difference of the three Motions seems to be:
Motion 6 proposes to keep the Third Legion in our northern territories and to use Arretium and Armenium as buffer states.
Motion 7 proposes that the Third Legion takes Arretium, but leaves Arminium independant.
Motion 8 proposes that the Third Legion take both Arretium and Arminium.

What say you, brothers?

econ21

05-23-2006, 12:30

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Ah, Senator TinCow, the scales begin to fall from my eyes!

In the interest of continued clarity, I call upon the orignal proposers of motions 6, 7 and 8 to say whether they will accept the good Senator TinCow's redrafting of their original text in return for his seconding their motions?

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 12:43

I agree with my esteemed collegae's redrafting of the motions.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 13:05

I would like to thank senator TinCow for kindly redrafting the proposals.

I second motion #5.

My esteemed colleague econ, my proposal of motion number six seems to differ greatly from Senator shifty's proposal. He clearly states that he wishes for the taking of Arretium and Arinimium. I, on the other hand, would prefer to take the Southern states, Paestum and Corfinum with Legio III.

I rest my case.

econ21

05-23-2006, 13:39

[SENATE SPEAKER]:

My esteemed colleague econ, my proposal of motion number six seems to differ greatly from Senator shifty's proposal. He clearly states that he wishes for the taking of Arretium and Arinimium. I, on the other hand, would prefer to take the Southern states, Paestum and Corfinum with Legio III.

Once more, I am indebted for to an Honorable Senator for shining light for a befuddled old man.

Now that the proposers have assented, the scribes have redrafted motions 7 and 8 in accordance with Senator TinCow's parsimonious phrasing.

Although Senator shifty157 at present is not in the House, his motion appears little different from the revised motion 8. So in the interests of clarity, I am withdrawing his motion and replacing it with its antithesis:

Motion 6:This House to leave both Arretium and Armenium independent in order to serve as buffer states.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconder: TinCow

Dutch_guy

05-23-2006, 16:04

I would also like to second motion number 6 for those who have ''forgotten'', this motion is written as following by our loyal scribes :

Motion 6:This House to leave both Arretium and Armenium independent in order to serve as buffer states.
Proposer: Tiberius
Seconder: TinCow

As I have said numerous times in this debate, and have gotten support from my honorable colleges, the present danger is Pyrrus. We must challenge him in the field with all our military might.

We must not make the mistake to let him fortify his position by taking a settlement so close to our current ones.

Obviously we'd suffer un necessary casualties were we to assault Pyrrus after he had taken up defensive positions in either Paesium or Corfinium.

Further more I would like to give my agreement to the following motions :

3,5 and number 6 - as stated before.

...

War is expensive, the longer it takes the more it costs. Even us Romans feel the pain of an empty treasury. That is why I propose to - instead of an academy - build up our trade networks. Be it with roads, ports or traders.

For I do, I know that 2 legions are enough to destroy Pyrrus in the field, money should be raised in order to spread our influence all over the world be it by sending our diplomats to the far corners of the world, or by sending our armies - but that's a matter of the future,not of today.

:balloon2:

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 16:11

Romans, I will rephrase my suggestion in order to make life alightly easier on our scribes:

Motion 9: I propose thatout Consul with the I legion marches north and extends roman law to Arretium and Ariminium. The II legion should march south and prevent Pyrros from entering roman land, but allow him to disperse his men and resources in the southern italian cities.

I also agree in that tradeshould be seekedwith our neighbours as soon asthis is possible-we can use themoneyto fight Pyrros, rather than rebel slaves. Although I know most of you here would be more interested in the slaves, specially female. But it is the glory of Rome what is at stake.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 16:20

Nay. O Master of the Swords, the threat presented by this rogue Pyrrhus is simply too dangerous for us Romans to allow him to live much longer, especially if he chooses to walk around Italia with his armies. The threat simply must be eliminated, and any allowance of Pyrrhus to build up a base on our lovely Italian soil is simply too risky, unnecessarily so. Also, sending merely one Legion will surely spell doom for Rome, as the destruction of a Legion and having only one other remaining means that the Greek upstart will be able to take our undefended cities! That is an outrageous suggestion, which I condemn.

Before I forget, my dutch colleague, from reading your posts, I assume that you second motions 1 and 2? Your aggression to Pyrrhus shows you have joined the wiser senators, and your proposal of sending Legio III to capture cities clearly shows that you wish to raise Legio III.

Dutch_guy

05-23-2006, 16:25

Motion 3 reads as follows:

MOTION 3: This house approves of motions 1 and 2, but proposes that all three legions be sent to Southern Italia to combat Pyrrhus.

So indeed, I do agree to motion 1 and 2.

Motion 3 contains these motions but strengthens my view of the matter. Namely that Legion III will be used to combat Pyrrhus.

Although I do wish to say, not that motion number 1 is unclear at all, that we should only assume control of the cities ( Paesium, Corfinium ) when Pyrrhus is no more.

:balloon2:

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 16:38

Oh, no, Tiberius, you misunderstand. I do not wish Pyrros in Italy any more than you do, but I want him to separate his forces, wreck the solid rock, so that the smaller pieces can be easily engulfed by roman strength.

Our southern legion should only discourage him from a foolish attempt of entering roman territory, fighting defensive battles at most, or, even better, limt themselves to short skirmishes and avoid the enemy until theConsul has finished in the North and can march south with a third legion to - only then - take war to Pyrros.

Our men do not mind who they fight on the walls of Rhegion, but they will be pleased to know that the enemy is not at full strength.

Patience, my friends, is one of the better virtues. If we are victorious at a great price or - Jupiter protect us - beaten by the greek king, it will take us a long time to recover and expand our domains, while if we do as I propose, Rome will be already enjoying the rich northern farmlands, and taxes while having another legion to defend our right to unite Italy.

I also approve motion 2, for the creation of a third legion will greatly aid, and speedup the much needed expansion of our territories.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 16:39

Master econ, could you please edit the first motion? What I had meant earlier was that once the Pyrrhic threat is gone, the Legio I and II immediately take Croton and Tarentum. Also, could you please add in the names of any senators who had proposed or supported a motion that was to do with a third legion as seconders of motion 2? Without my second proposal passed, their proposals would all disappear, which I do not think they would like to see.

Master of Swords, this talk of patience is un-Roman and cowardly! Our Roman units outclass those of the Greek, and what should happen if Pyrrhus besieges Roma? Would you send in eighty men at a time and hope to separate his forces? No, the threat is too great. Besides, young Romans are anxious for war, eager to prove themselves worthy of the title 'Sons of Mars' on the battlefield. Glory to Rome!

Lord Winter

05-23-2006, 16:42

My fellow senators we must not let Pyorrus grow any stronger. Thereforth i propose motion 10: A consular army is raised and sent to engage the Greeks in the field under the command of the 1st consol.
Also I second motion 6

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 16:46

Senator DoH, you will find that I share the same point of view as you and have already proposed this course of action, in the form of motion 1. We need no army raising, Rome's current soldiers are more than enough and ready to take on the horde of Pyrrhos the Epeirote on an open field. Quintus is the most able man, and will personally command the Legions I and II.

econ21

05-23-2006, 16:49

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Honorable Senators! A minor point of procedure. The scribes are overworked. As an economy, they have decided that each motion will have only one Seconder. The Seconder is only required to get the motion put on the ballot paper. Wider demonstrations of support can be expressed in open debate here or indeed in the public voting on motions which begins tomorrow.

Senators Tiberius and DoH could you perhaps agree a common wording for motion 1 that would make motion 10 redundant? The reference to Quintus should perhaps be replaced by one to the First Consul, so whoever is elected to that post can lead our main army in the field.

And rather than speak of legions, may I recommend the terminology "Consular army" to refer to a full stack of troops and "Praetorian army" to refer to a half stack? We must not forget that our legions must over time be matched 1:1 with our alae.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 17:02

Master econ, I must say that I see no difference in Senator DoH's wording and my own. I propose that these motions be merged, and the discussion of the tenth motion end here.

econ21

05-23-2006, 17:08

[SENATE SPEAKER]:Thank you, Senator Tiberius. The scribes suggest this formulation:

MOTION 1This house proposes that the First Consul be sent with a full Consular Army to defeat King Pyrrhus and then immediately to take Croton and Tarentum.

On a further procedural point, the scribes have refused to post motions that do not yet have seconders. ... Those fellows are getting a little ahead of themselves... Ah well. And yes, the chief scribe is rather hard of hearing, so to make sure he has heard you, if you do wish to second a motion X, please shout out "I second motion X".

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 17:13

Hmm, yes, I think that would do, master econ. I suppose Pyrrhos can be treated as a king, though he is king only of Epirus, and not leader of the Greek alliance.

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 17:45

Master of Swords, this talk of patience is un-Roman and cowardly! Our Roman units outclass those of the Greek, and what should happen if Pyrrhus besieges Roma? Would you send in eighty men at a time and hope to separate his forces? No, the threat is too great. Besides, young Romans are anxious for war, eager to prove themselves worthy of the title 'Sons of Mars' on the battlefield. Glory to Rome!

Oh, Tiberius, if you are really young enough or naive enough to believe patience is cowardly, you are very inexperienced and must make yourself acquainted with the works of the great master Sun Tzu. Maybe you would like to be sent to the field, and lead a "rash, brave and truly roman" charge into king Pyrrhus' pikemen? I am sure there is nothing you can do that will please him more than to see Roma so foolishly deprived from one of her better sons...

King Pyrrhus will not besiege Roma, in the presence of an army close in pursuit at the south (the II Army) and our Consul's army in the north being just a day's march away. I would like to see him try though. It has been a long time, sice the mighty walls of Roma have been blooded by her adversaries. I will take up the sword myself, should Pyrrhus believe himself arrogant enough to attempt such an adventure!

Young Romans, as we all know, are anxious to return to their wives and shops, but it will be better for them to acquire experience against the disorganised barbarians of the north than the disciplined greek phalangites.

econ21

05-23-2006, 17:46

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Here is an important announcement - the voting for the post of First Consul has now been opened!

However, I urge you Senators: DO NOT VOTE!

Ah well, what I mean is - do not vote until you have used the full influence of this House first to familiarise yourself with the candidates.

Candidates are expected to post manifestoes here on the floor of the House.

You may also wish to take the opportunity to pose questions to the candidates. Since at least one of the candidates, our Princeps Senator Quintus, is a little hard of hearing, I urge you to shout out your questions by beginning Question #: and to enumerate each questions to facilitate response. To encourage a public debate, please address your such enumerated questions to all candidates.

Bilateral exchanges between Senators and candidates on the floor of this house are encouraged, but should not be confused with general questions to all candidates.

econ21

05-23-2006, 17:56

[QUINTUS]: **Cough** Fellow Senators, you all know me - I am Quintus, Leader of this House. I know, some plebs confuse me with our Senate Speaker - it must be the quantity of pasta we both consume - but we are quite unrelated.

I am honoured to be standing for the position of First Consul. Without further ado, here is my manifesto:

You need a general to lead our armies against Pyrrhus. Know this - whether I am elected First Consul or not, I stand ready to fight and fight again for Rome.

It is right and proper that the First Consul should command our armies. But a First Consul should be more than a General. He must be a man with a vision of what must be done and the strength of character to see it through.

My vision for the next five years is simple: expand or die! We are a small faction, but with great potential. We will work tirelessly to extend our influence over all the provinces in Italy, bringing the petty kingdoms into our Republic and driving out our enemies, the Greeks. But there I will stop. I will seek to avoid confrontation with Gaul or Carthage. Yes, war with them is inevitable, but there is much building and preparation that needs to be done to make sure that when the battle cries begin, the advantage lies with us.

As to my character, that is for others to testify to. But I will promise this - I will stand for one term only. After five years, I will not seek re-election. After that, I will stand willing to fight for Rome at any opportunity and would welcome retaining an army command. My personal ambition is modest - through command in the field to ascend to the title of legate and ultimately praetor, so as to cultivate an experienced staff that will give us an invaluable edge in battle. But in regard to the position of First Consul, I will step aside after one term in order that younger blades may lead our great Republic.

But I will vow this: I will endow my successors with a larger, richer and mightier Rome - one that will make our neighbours quake with fear!

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 18:11

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 18:35

Senator SwordsMaster, procrastination will only lead to Pyrrhus strengthening his grip on Southern Italia. We must strike hard and fast while his army is still not at its full potential strength, and the risk of city fighting is too high, with it being impossible to flank the dreaded Epeirote Phalangites. An open field is our only chance, and the weaker the hated Greek is, the better. Our knowledge of the area and manoeuvrablity of the maniples should be used to our advantage. To waste these advantages is foolish, as well as expensive. The more quickly the liberation of Croton and Tarentum occur, the more quickly our cities will be able to replenish our losses and increase our armies.

We can shorten the campaign and take 4 cities instead of 2 by striking north first. We will then turn to Pyrrhus with more men, and more wealth, and battle his disordered and depleted hordes out of Italy. His men on the streets? Our skirmishers will fire at them from the safety of the city walls, and it is the decision of our Consul the "how" of surrounding and annihilating them. Maybe, with our newly aquired wealth from the north we will be able to raise another temple to Mars who will aid our men in battle, or maybe, some less-than-loyal greeks can be bribed even before our armies make contact.

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 18:49

The bribery of a general so famous as Pyrrhus seems unlikely, and the bulk of his army will make it difficult for any bribe to take place. Skirmishers? Their ammunition will be depleted in a short amount of time. Pyrrhus' archers, on the other hand, can pick off our men in relative safety, while defended by his phalangites and elephants. By the time we have four cities, we will have few legions, with some spent fighting the rebels, thinning out the numbers. You speak of patience, yet why be patient with a growing threat? Surely be patient in the North? The Gauls are of no concern with their lack of numbers in Italia, and they will surely spend armies taking Ariminium and Arretium, being barbarians who have inferior weapons, morale, training and tactics. Pyrrhus' phalanx, on the other hand, is far more dangerous and effective. If we allow him to take cities, he will defend them very well. If we take the cities, our armies will be weak. Outright battle is the only way forward, if we are to be the masters of Italia.

SwordsMaster

05-23-2006, 18:59

I do not agree with you, senator, but I have spoken my mind, with the best interest of Rome at heart, I will let Senate's vote decide.

flyd

05-23-2006, 19:16

What follows is the manifesto of Tiberius Coruncanius, candidate for Consul.

Senators! Some of you may see this as a grim time. We are at war. Our enemy, Pyrrhus of Epirus, supposedly one of the best generals of our time, has a large army in southern Italy, and probably wishes to take it northward.

But this is also a time of great opportunity. The southern Italian states cannot defend themselves against Pyrrhus. If we defend them, they will be much more willing to be incorporated into the Republic, although some force may have to be applied upon them. The Greek colonies of southern Italy, by supporting Pyrrhus, become our enemies, and we are therefore perfectly justified in conquering them. By the time this is over, Pyrrhus will be dead, and we will control all of southern Italy. We will also show the world what happens when you invade Italy and threaten Rome, regardless of how great of a general you are considered to be, or how many elephants you have. It will be especially important for Carthage to see that, as, unlike the eastern countries, it remains unchecked as the sole power in the western Mediterranean.

To accomplish all of this, all we must do is defeat the army of Epirus and kill Pyrrhus, before they conquer anything. Some of our fellow Senators will have you believe that that is impossible. But to do that is to discount our troops, and to do them a great disservice. Our troups are better equipped, better trained, and more disciplined than those of our enemy. They will be well-supplied and fighting close to home. I also do not believe in the military genius of Pyrrhus. If he was that great of a general, would he have brought himself into his current predicament? Would he have underestimated our strengths so greatly? I believe he is arrogant, and far too overconfident in his own abilities.

Should I be elected Consul, my first action would be to march both Legions south with no delay. They will march past Corfinium, combine, and continue south to seek out Pyrrhus. After Pyrrhus' defeat, southern Italy would be secured, followed by the capture of Messana to gain a foothold on Sicily or the capture of Ariminum and Arretium as they do not form effective buffers against the Gauls. A third Legion would be raised immediately, while an Academy would be built when the funds allow.

Senators! Romans! We have little to fear on the battlefield. If we ever lose a war, it will happen within this very building. Our main enemies are inaction and indecisiveness. Do not lose this war before it has even begun.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 19:35

My fellow senators,

As has happened before, the very existence of the city of Rome is in danger. As the clouds gather around our city, we can rely on our people to weather the storms and make the sacrifices necessary to make our nation triumph over all its threats.
Our people's strength and courage are not in question, and as long as we remain in the favour of the Gods, all our people need is a strong leader to act as a focus for their zeal. Before you stand four candidates, all men of talent, power and intellect. You are asked to make a hard decision indeed. It will require the utmost of your collective wisdom to make the correct choice.

I say I am the best choice for first consul !

The esteemed Princeps Senatus Quintus is needed in Rome instead of the battlefield. Our people need his comforting presence to give them hope in these dark times and to prepare our glorious city for extended war. This will require sacrifices and strong leadership, such as only the noble Quintus is able to provide. His brilliant son, that superb administrator, is needed in our sister city Capua for the same reasons. That leaves only my brother Tiberius Coruncanius and myself available to lead our forces in the field.
While Tiberius shows a talent for command, I am more experienced in the organizing of a large body of men, as all who know of my understanding of mathematics and skill in handling the bureaucracy, are aware of. Thus I suggest to this noble house that my brother Tiberius, with his obvious skill in training, prepare the raw recruits of the third legion to settle affairs to the north, while I lead the main army to settle once and for all with Pyrrhus in the south !

I do not volunteer myself out of pride, as I say the noble Quintus is a better and more respected man than me by far, and a shining example for all his sons to emulate. In a time of peace he would be the natural and obvious choice for the exalted position of first consul. But unfortunately, we are forced in war and for the good of the Roman people, I see no other choice to volunteer myself for this position.

I vow you this, my fellow senators : I will crush our enemies underfoot and make our city shine as a glorious beacon of light in this dark world !

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 19:45

Esteemed Speaker,

I would ask you to request he senate librarian to post the candidate manifestos in the senate library for easy perusal by our fellow sentors.

Dutch_guy

05-23-2006, 19:57

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-23-2006, 21:21

I'd like to ask all of the consular candidates the following question(s)
Your words, candidates, about conquest, the glory of battle and even the death of Pyhrrus are hopefull indeed...
but how do you propose to finance your war ?
What are you planning to construct in the currently owned settlements ?

We have a large standing army which we can ill support for an extended period on our current budget, especially if we raise an additional third praetorian legion. Therefore we must, for their own protection and our financial security, conquer and occupy the rebellious latin and etruscan city states. It is their and our only hope of long term survival.
Our main focus should initially be on improving our road system. This is vital both for trade and military reasons. Afterwards the focus should be on trade related structures like traders and ports. In Rome itself I would start work on an academy, which is essential as we are in dire need of learned men of all trades to serve our nation.
Should victory be ours against Pyrrhus I would, after these first critical buildings, desire to raise temples to honour Mars and Jupiter, and additionally I would like to honour Mercury with a temple so he shall bless our trade efforts. With the skilled administrators we have I see no reason not to set the tax rate to high in all our settlements, this will incite our population to better and enrich themselves.
From the first moment we should train troops to complement our existing legions, to serve as garrisons and for the to be created third legion. I will raise roman troops in Rome and italian troops in Ancona and Capua continuously untill the number of troops has reached a satisfactory level.

How will you deal with other nations, the Macedonians for example, will you seek their aid or their land ?

I would immediately send out our esteemed diplomat Sextus Antio to sue for a ceasefire with the Greeks to give us more time to consolidate and to make us better able to crush them later. Whether this ploy succeeds or fails, I will send Sextus Antio out into the east, travelling round the mediterranian, offering an open hand of friendship and trade to all we find living there. I would especially try to form an alliance with the nations that border the Greeks and try to incite them to attack our enemies. As soon as a non-troops-producing city is available I would train a second diplomat and send him out to the west to do the same. A third diplomat would be stationed in Italy itself to carry out the wishes of the senate.
If Pyrrhus agrees to our demand to surrender his colonies in southern italy, I am willing to consider peace if the senate agrees. I find this an unlikely scenario however, but I think honour demands an effort should be made, before we crush him utterly.

And further more what do you plan to do when Pyhrrus is no longer here, surely that will be long before the end of your reign ?

With that much territory conquered, an effort should be made to stabilize and to make our position unassailable. Therefore I will slowly raise our army strength to four praetorian legions, two stationed north and two stationed south, while spending most of our budget in improving our infrastructure and trade and auxilia buildings. Within five years our position should be made so strong our neighbours should fear our military and financial prowess.
The Republic of Carthage especially worries me, it has become strong and powerful and has a strong hold on most of Sicily, from which they might try to invade us in the future. I forsee a clash between our nations in the future and we should be prepared to meet that challenge.
I will not seek war, this is not the Roman way, but any nations that dares to threaten us will feel our rightious retaliation.

What are your goals, for your consular period - what are you trying to achieve?

Firstly security, secondly stability, thirdly a high standard of living for our citizens.

I and I'm sure the other senators would like to know the answers to these predicaments, for the sake of the republic of course.

I hope I have answered the questions of my esteemd collegae to his satisfaction and that of the senate. These are my personal views and as such secondary to the wishes of the senate, which I will carry out to the limit of my ability.

Glaucus

05-23-2006, 21:45

I must say I am not in favor attacking north. This body has swayed my view. Could the consuls who think expanding north is neccessary answer these:

Question1: What steps will you take to defeat Pyrrhus?

Question2: What is your plan if Pyrrhus defeats a Roman army in the field?

Question3: What will be your policy about these factions: Macedon, Carthage, Gaul, Greece

Question4: Why is it neccessary to expand north now?

I will withhold my opinions on the matter of specific motions until the house recieves answers to these questions and any others.

ab cedo ab area
I yield the floor

Avicenna

05-23-2006, 21:51

And what action, may I ask, would you take if we are assaulted simeltaneously by massive armies from both the Gauls and Carthaginians, in Roma and Rhegion respectively? This might be a scenario you will face, should you allow these powers to build up over time.

Also, do you intend to crush Pyrrhus and then leave Tarentum and Croton in the hands of the arrogant Greeks and their unorthodox customs?

Finally, before you fall asleep reading this, does higher living standards for our citizens simply mean higher standards for the Romans who have citizenship, or for all Italian citizens? Or, do you plan on denying Italian comrades citizenship upon liberation, and instead sell them as slaves to Romans to better their lives?

flyd

05-23-2006, 22:22

I will take a moment to address the specific issues raised by the Senators.

how do you propose to finance your war?

I believe wars finance themselves. Control of additional regions provides additional income. Currently, our income can support our army. As long as the Republic grows as the army does, we will not have financial problems. Of course, this can be augmented by increasing the output of our current provinces, by upgrading trading facilities, roads, and signing trade agreements. More on that to follow.

What are you planning to construct in the currently owned settlements?

There has been some demand for an Academy in Rome, and that I agree with, as long as the funds don't take away from military needs. Other than that, I will focus on economic construction, improving the trade infrastructure, both sea-borne and by roads, which also serve a dual military purpose. Military construction is generally unnecessary at this time, but the fleet must be improved, which may require some construction.

How will you deal with other nations, the Macedonians for example, will you seek their aid or their land?

It varies with nation. The Macedonians should not be considered enemies at this time, as they are the rivals of the Greeks, although I would not consider them close friends either. The Greeks themselves I would seek a ceasefire with, after Pyrrhus is dead and they have been completely ejected from Italy. I believe that in that case they will not be a threat. The barbarians are to generally be ignored. Carthage is our main rival, and although I do not forsee open warfare with them during the upcoming Consular term, I would take steps to limit their expansion and influence, by, for example, capturing Messana.

And further more what do you plan to do when Pyhrrus is no longer here, surely that will be long before the end of your reign?

After Pyrrhus, I plan to capture all of southern Italy, get a foothold on Sicily, and take Etruria and Umbria in the north. I plan to upgrade the fleet so that it may compete with the navy of Carthage. If we got into a war with Carthage, and could gain naval superiority in the western Mediterranean, we could invade and capture their islands which would be cut off, and then invade Iberia or Africa wherever we feel it would be most advantageous to us. We would be assured victory.

What are your goals, for your consular period - what are you trying to achieve?

Over the next 5 years, we must achieve dominance over the entire Italian peninsula, and prepare for a war with Carthage. Although such a war may not come soon, we must be ready.

***

I would like to point out to Senator Glaucus that I am not one of those who wishes to expand north before Pyrrhus is defeated. Only after southern Italy is secured do I wish to capture Etruria and Umbria, but not necessarily get into a war with the Gauls. I believe the Senator's questions were, therefore, not addressed at me, and will skip them.

And what action, may I ask, would you take if we are assaulted simeltaneously by massive armies from both the Gauls and Carthaginians, in Roma and Rhegion respectively?

If that were to happen, Rome would be the primary defensive objective. All the available legions would be combined, leaving the south momentarily undefended, while they defeated the Gallic incursion. They would then either move, or be shipped by sea, which is faster, south to intercept the Carthaginians. This scenario is precisely why we need a strong navy. If we can stop Carthage from landing and reinforcing large armies in Sicily, from Africa, then we have secured our southern border.

Also, do you intend to crush Pyrrhus and then leave Tarentum and Croton in the hands of the arrogant Greeks and their unorthodox customs?

Not at all, the Greeks must be expelled from Italy. I would do that as soon as the town of Corfinium was on our side.

Finally, before you fall asleep reading this, does higher living standards for our citizens simply mean higher standards for the Romans who have citizenship, or for all Italian citizens? Or, do you plan on denying Italian comrades citizenship upon liberation, and instead sell them as slaves to Romans to better their lives?

I shall not conceal the fact that I will favor Rome above all others. But all Italians loyal to Rome shall receive fair treatment.

econ21

05-23-2006, 23:31

[QUINTUS]I thank the noble Senators for their questions. They show a subtle and detailed grasp of the issues. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain my own analysis and intentions.

==========================================================
To answer, the Senator Dutch_guys' questions:

>>but how do you propose to finance your war ?

The theme of my Consulate would be expansion. So long as we remain on the Italian peninsula, seizing cities will increase our revenue without increasing our costs. Two armies can defend the whole of Italy as well as they can defend our three existing provinces. In short, I concurr with my honorable friend, Senator FLYdude, that wars of expansion can pay for themselves.

Beyond that, I would favour the construction of economic buildings - traders, roads, ports - in conquered towns. The natural reluctance of the conquered to fight for the conqueror requires that most of our military recruitment must come from our existing provinces.

Taxes I would set at high, unless that kills population growth. Early on, the good citizens of Roma may have to pay an even steeper price for war.

>>What are you planning to construct in the currently owned settlements ?

Traders in Capua and Ancona, then military buildings. Our three provinces must be all be capable of producing a variety of well armoured soldiers. One city on either side of the peninsula must be devoted to construction of a navy, although I would need to survey the coast to find the most suitable harbours.

In Roma, I would initially prioritise a stables to recruit equites and an academy to teach young additions to our great families. Thereafter, I would work towards a foundry so that our armies are the best equipped in the world.

>>How will you deal with other nations, the Macedonians for example, will you seek their aid or their land ?

I would seek trade with all we meet and avoid war with all but Pyrrhus and rebels.

>>And further more what do you plan to do when Pyhrrus is no longer here, surely that will be long before the end of your reign ?

I would expand our Republic throughout the Italian peninsula and into Sicily, stopping only when our borders touch those of Carthage and Gaul.

>>What are your goals, for your consular period - what are you trying to achieve?

(1) Expansion of territory
(2) Economic growth
(3) Expulsion of Greece from Italy and Sicily
(4) Cultivation of a healthy cadre of fellow generals, with good traits and useful ancillaries

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

To answer Senator Glaucus's questions:

>>Question1: What steps will you take to defeat Pyrrhus?

Pyrrhus will defeat himself. To march south to face him in open battle is folly. We will surely win, but the casualties will be high. Instead, let him undo himself. He will divide his armies. He will deplete them subduing and then garrisoning rebels that otherwise we would have to defeat. And yes, he will soon march on us within the year. But he will come piecemeal. We, by contrast, will bide our time until the time is right. Then, when he is over-extended, we will strike repeatedly with a full consular army. We will defeat his captains, trap his garrisons and slowly dismember his army. With great numerical superiority in each encounter, our losses will be minimal and victory assured.

>>Question2: What is your plan if Pyrrhus defeats a Roman army in the field?

Your premise is inconceivable.

>>Question3: What will be your policy about these factions: Macedon, Carthage, Gaul, Greece

For the next five years, physical constraints limit our realm of concern to Italy and Sicily. Outside that realm, I would seek trade and peace with all.

Greece has declared war on us and must be expelled from our realm. Her presence here is an affront.After that, we can regard her like Macedon - peace and trade can be sought.

Carthage and Gaul will attack us eventually. We must seek to prepare for the inevitable and deterr it to allow yet more time for preparation. But when they strike, we should mercilessly conquer all provinces sharing a land border with us - driving the Carthaginians across the sea and the Gauls across the Alps.

>>Question4: Why is it neccessary to expand north now?

It is unnecessary. But it is desirable to expand at every opportunity. We must feign weakness to fool Pyrrhus into dividing his forces. That implies a light southern garrison. While Pyrrhus takes over the rebel towns to our south, we will be able to seize at least one rebel town north of us. Our lines of communication are short and we will be able to quickly return south when he enters our lands.

=========================================================
To answer Senator Tiberius's questions:

>>And what action, may I ask, would you take if we are assaulted simeltaneously by massive armies from both the Gauls and Carthaginians, in Roma and Rhegion respectively? This might be a scenario you will face, should you allow these powers to build up over time.

By this time, we should have two full Consular armies - one in the north, one in the south (Sicily). Each alone should be able to defeat any army our enemies throw at us. We only risk defeat is we are engaged by multiple enemy armies. That is only likely if we march blind into enemy lines. I will ensure each army follows paths scouted by a spy to avoid such peril.

>>Also, do you intend to crush Pyrrhus and then leave Tarentum and Croton in the hands of the arrogant Greeks and their unorthodox customs?

Greece's presence in Italy and Sicily is intolerable. I utterly disagree with my honourable friend, Senator DDW. Peace with Greece, however, temporary, will not avail us. We are stronger than Pyrrhus and will only three provinces to call our own, we must expand now if we are to keep pace with our larger rivals.

>>Finally, before you fall asleep reading this, does higher living standards for our citizens simply mean higher standards for the Romans who have citizenship, or for all Italian citizens? Or, do you plan on denying Italian comrades citizenship upon liberation, and instead sell them as slaves to Romans to better their lives?

The towns and cities we will liberate are small and will take time to mature and develop the necessary infrastructure. Depleting their populations by enslavement will slow that progress to a crawl. Roma will grow with or without additional slaves. I will occupy, not enslave, all Italian provinces.

shifty157

05-23-2006, 23:36

It seems much has occured in my absense. I will atempt to avoid rhetoric as these proceedings are becoming rather lengthy as it is.

Publius Laevinius

Fellow senators we face a trying time ahead of us. Pyrrhus marches north as we speak and we stand with our backs to the wall. Our army marches forth on gold alone and as we stand with our territorial holdings our treasury is not sufficient to support such a war effort as will be needed.

We must seek the alliances of the various other latin states that surround us and face the same threat. This will without doubt require some persuasion as these small states are proud and disdain our rule. To some only steel can persuade . . .

One of our standing legions must march north under competent leadership to bring in the rebellious states of Arminium and Aretium immediatly. This will not only protect Rome herself but also fill her coffers with abundant funds. In the same way Paestrum must also be brought within our ranks by another legion. These states will of course be granted full citizenship and their auxiliary assimilation into the empire will begin immediatly.

The conscription of a third legion must begin immediatly. There are several standing garrisons in our cities that can be called forth and it will only take a season or two to assemble these troops with new recruits to fashion a third legion. This will be compelted easily before Pyrrhus has the time to march north from his currently reported position.

Pyrrhus will without doubt march on Corfinium without delay and this cannot be avoided. But it can be planned for. By the time Pyrrhus captures Corfinium our 1st legion in Peastrum and our 3rd legion outside of Ancona will be in position to flank his army. Once he is within this trap he will be crushed like the bug he is and upon his death will follow the liberation of all of southern italy from the Greeks and the inclusion of all independant cities.

I have great faith in our diplomat that he will serve us well in his travels to Macedon, Illyria, and Carthage to offer trade and perhaps alliance as well depending on circumstances.

With southern Italy liberated and unified and its auxiliary assimilation well under way it will be time to look further. Rome herself needs improvements and with this considerable amount of tax income pouring into our treasury from the newly aquired possessions she will have all that she could want. An academy would only be the start.

The engines of war however do not stop. With such veteran legions on our borders being supported by our treasury it would be foolish to allow them to sit unused to waste. Sicily is only a small hop away and the Gauls as well will be removed from Italy once and for all to never again threaten Rome.

I will stretch our borders from the Alps in the North to Sicily in the South so that no enemy army can ever again set foot on Roman land and Rome will be more powerful than she has ever been before or ever dreamed she could be.

Ignoramus

05-23-2006, 23:38

I still do not agree about trading with Gauls. True, it earns denarii for the republic, but are we so corrupt to forget the atrocities the Gauls inflicted upon us for a paltry sum money?

Your strategy is a foolish one, would you have us fight both the Gauls and Carthaginians at once?

TinCow

05-23-2006, 23:38

Senators, before I delve into deeper matters, I would like announce that, as per the previous request, the currently available Manifestos of the candidates for the Consulship have been posted in the vestibule of the Senate Library. There they shall remain until after the election has been decided. In addition, all motions enacted into law will be posted there as well, until such time as they become obsolete or are otherwise made ineffective.

As for the issues at hand, my questions for the candidates have already been asked or answered. However, some statements have been made by my fellow Senators today that I feel I must respond to.

First, Senator SwordsMaster urges us to delay a confrontation with the hated Pyrrhus. I understand the strategy behind his desire to take the enemy piece by piece and I applaud his desire to keep Roman men from slaughter. However, I cannot understand how this desire has any manifestation except to place faith in the enemy himself! Such a plan requires that we stand by and wait, trusting in the Greek to dismantle his own power and give us the advantage. Fellow Senators, we cannot ensure that such an action will occur. By delaying, we give Pyrrhus the chance to choose the time and place of the coming conflict. Yes, he may disperse his forces, be so too may he concentrate and either fall back behind the walls of Tarentum or advance on the southern Italian states in force! Either way, we will be giving the initiative to the foe and trusting in his own ignorance to see us to victory. I say we cannot take this risk. A direct and immediate confrontation of Pyrrhus may be costly in Roman blood, but it is the only way we can ensure that the battle will be fought on Roman terms. Think also of our prospective allies in the independant Italian states, north and south. What will they think of the power of Rome if we delay, if we stall, in the presence of the enemy? I urge whichever candidate that wins this election to confront the Greeks immediately and to end this threat without hesitation!

Secondly, in one of his questions, Senator Tiberius made a comment suggesting that he was planning on giving Roman citizenship to all Italian states. I find it difficult for me to even repeat such a comment. Does Senator Tiberius really propose to give away the rights of true born Romans to every man we march by? Have they sacrificed as much as we have, to earn such an honor? Did the Italians found this city? Did the Italians throw off the yoke of the Etruscan kings? I tell you now, the ghost of Lucius Junius Brutus will curse all who suggest such a thing! Our Italian allies are worthy men, for certain, and for their service we should rightly reward them. We will provide them with security. We will develop their cities and make them prosperous. Their sons will grow healthy and strong with our gratitude. However, some things are not ours to give away. Roman citizenship should remain only with the sons of Romulus! Anything else betrays all that we have fought for.

shifty157

05-24-2006, 00:21

econ21

05-24-2006, 00:28

[QUINTUS]:
I am not sure who you were addressing but if you were addressing me then i can only say that i said nothing of the sort.

Apologies, noble Senators - I believe Senator Ignoramus was addressing me.

On further reflection, I have decided to defer to expertise and judgement of our chief diplomat, Sextus Antio, who has advised against trading with the Gauls.

GeneralHankerchief

05-24-2006, 00:32

I must say, that some of the manifestos of the candidates, as well as the answers to questions from my colleagues are somewhat alarming me. You talk about long-term goals for our Republic, but that's just what they are: long-term. Right now we have a large army with a power-hungry general that is the immediate threat.

Econ21/Quintus, your initial strategy is commendable and practical. However, your blatant arrogance when it comes to the outcome of the confrontation with Pyrrhus frightens me greatly. What if he doesn't divide? Surely you must have a backup plan in case something goes wrong. If you do not address this than be assured that you will not garner my vote for Consul.

Flydude/Tiberius Coruncanius, you have a very solid strategy for dealing with Pyrrhus. However, I believe that you also have some of the flaw that you attributed to our enemy- arrogance. The Carthaginians pose no threat to us at the current state. Their armies are weak- composed mainly of mercenaries. Surely we should concentrate on the territories closer to home, like Northern Italy?

DDW/Lucius Amelius, your domestic strategy is well-thought out, and has little flaws. However, you fail to say how you will deal with the clear and present threat- Pyrrhus of Eprius has a large army bent on destroying us, in case you forgot! Please put into detail how you plan to defeat him.

Shifty/Publius Laevinius, your strategy is extremely interesting: send half of our current forces away from the threat! You speak of time to raise a third legion. I know phalangites are slow, but I did not realize they were that slow! Suppose Pyrrhus were to move faster then anticipated- then you have one, maybe one and a half legions to deal with him. Please keep that into consideration.

I apologize if the esteemed candidates deem my words harsh, but these are hard times and I want the correct man leading us.

econ21

05-24-2006, 01:04

[QUINTUS]:

Econ21/Quintus, your initial strategy is commendable and practical. However, your blatant arrogance when it comes to the outcome of the confrontation with Pyrrhus frightens me greatly. What if he doesn't divide? Surely you must have a backup plan in case something goes wrong. If you do not address this than be assured that you will not garner my vote for Consul.

Senator GeneralHankerchief, this is a time for plain speaking and you are to be commended for it.

What would you have me say? My spies inform me that Pyrrhus currently has an army equivalent to a Praetorian army. By the end of Spring, I will have concentrated our scattered forces into a single Consular army, twice as large as his. Have we Romans become so timid that we fear giving battle with such odds? Even if Pyrrhus does not divide, he will not be able to defeat our main army.

He has few assets. His elephants can be countered by our many velites. He has a superiority in cavalry and missiles, although by Summer, my recruitment of funditores and allied cavalry will have greatly reduced that advantage. These few advantages will not be sufficient to outweigh our superior quantity and quality of heavy infantry. It is inconceivable that we will lose such a contest.

Now, I concede, it is possible that, by bad luck or misjudgement, he may defeat a detachment of our troops located far from the Consular army. But so long as our Consular army remains undefeated, we will - sooner or later - be able to bring him to battle and defeat him.

You must understand - this is not arrogance. I would not dream of sending any one of our present commands alone against Pyrrhus. But when we outnumber him two to one on the field, victory is inevitable.

Now, you may say - what if he gathers more men to his army? And so also musters a full consular force? To this, I make two observations. Firstly, such an event is much more likely if we blithely march south in strength, rather than draw him north by feigning weakness. Secondly, in such an event, I would stand on the defensive on high ground, allowing his men to tire themselves out approaching us. The edge would still be with us.

And yet, I hear you still persist - what if we should lose? Then, I say this: we already have enough men to form a Praetorian army in addition to our Consular one. With additional recruitment and the survivors from our imagined defeat, we will once more outnumber a victorious Pyrrhus (a man who has earned something of a reputation for costly victories). And again, in such an event, I would not immediately seek to confront him. I would give him the opportunity to divide his forces, become diverted by petty sieges and only give battle in the most favourable of circumstances.

flyd

05-24-2006, 01:30

I generally agree with Senator econ21 on the strategy to be employed against Pyrrhus. We both think that the two Legions should be combined, and that they should engage Pyrrhus in battle. I will point out where we differ, and explain why I believe my strategy to be superior.

The difference is where Pyrrhus is to be engaged. I believe the two Legions should march south, past Corfinium, link up somewhere south of it, and engage Pyrrhus in battle on the open fields of Samnium. Senator econ21 seems to believe that the engagement should take place further north.

But I see one significant problem with the region north of Corfinium: mountains. Starting in Tarentum and moving northwest toward Corfinium, you come upon a fork. If you take a left, you arrive in Capua, and if you take a right, you arrive in Ancona. And between these two roads is an impassible mountain range. To get from Ancona to Capua, one would have to travel via Latium, passing close to Rome. Now, if you are to have a single army, how will you defend both approaches?

I think that a plan to defend north of Corfinium assumes that Pyrrhus will be willing to engage your army. And indeed he may. But if he was smart, he could instead take the other approach, and capture the city you were not defending. I think that's a risk better not taken, and I believe Pyrrhus should be met somewhere on the open ground south of Corfinium.

Ignoramus

05-24-2006, 03:41

I apologize to Senator Quintus (econ21), for misreading his proposal, I thought he stated that we ought to attack Gaul and Carthage, whereas Senator Quintus stated: "But when they strike, we should mercilessly conquer all provinces sharing a land border with us - driving the Carthaginians across the sea and the Gauls across the Alps."

I, Senator Antio, do apologize to Senator Quintus.

shifty157

05-24-2006, 05:02

Shifty/Publius Laevinius, your strategy is extremely interesting: send half of our current forces away from the threat! You speak of time to raise a third legion. I know phalangites are slow, but I did not realize they were that slow! Suppose Pyrrhus were to move faster then anticipated- then you have one, maybe one and a half legions to deal with him. Please keep that into consideration.

A full third legion can be assembled in the proper position in two seasons. Most likely this will coincide with the fall Corfinium. I have given this much careful consideration and know that the timing will work perfectly.

We need to advance north immediatly to bring more money into our treasury. Arminium will fall the first turn followed closely by Aretium in the next season. The gauls do not begin with nor have the potential to raise a significant army in the area to threaten our hold.

econ21

05-24-2006, 10:32

[QUINTUS]: Senators! If I may take a moment to speak to issues beyond those of this election campaign. The deadline for proposing motions is tonight and I humbly wish to submit one for your consideration.

It concerns the development of our generals. All members of the Lower House aspire to lead our armies into battle. I propose that the First Consul, whoever he may be, take certain specific steps to prepare them for this.

First, you will notice that governors of Capua often attract fiery priests of Mars into their retinue. I propose that, where possible, generals in the Lower House be rotated through governorships of Capua so that they each attract such an invaluable ancillary for leading our men into attack.

Second, you will doubtless have studied the rules of Roman leadership laid down by the venerable Senator Marcus Camillus - they are available in the Senate library. There is a clear progression of office from Tribune through Legate to Praetor. These offices confer valuable traits in command and, when the general leaves office, also add to their influence as governors. However, you will note that the preconditions for attaining such office are lengthy periods in the field and ending a season in a settlement does not count for such duty. Therefore, I propose that where possible, generals of the Lower House do not end seasons in settlements but instead be left in command of armies or in forts. (If elected First Consul, I would build a fort between Roma and Capua to act as a central barracks for homeland defence and collecting replacements to be marched to the front.)

Clearly, these proposals are not absolute and hence I add the condition "where reasonable". Our priority is defeating Pyrrhus and all other considerations are secondary to that. Moreover, we will need a governor of Roma, at least. However, we will also have generals appear who wish to remain in the Upper House, some of which may never wish to take up arms. These individuals would be better suited for civic rather than military duty.

So, I propose:

MOTION 9: This House proposes that, where reasonable, generals from the Lower House be tasked with military duties. Specially that, where reasonable, they:
a) be rotated through the post of governor of Capua
b) end their turns outside of settlements

In short, honorable Senators, I wish you to instruct the First Consul to nurture and develop his generals of the Lower House so that each may some day become a fine commander who can lead our armies into the field as First Consul. Do I have a seconder for this motion?

Ignoramus

05-24-2006, 10:40

I second this sensible motion by Senator Quintus.

TinCow

05-24-2006, 12:12

Senator Quintus is certainly wise and his motion will do much to further proper education of our children in military matters after they leave the Academy following their 4 years as a Student. However, I must point out that such an advanced military education takes a great deal of time to obtain and that the present generation of honorable Generals has not completed even the first year of such a qualification. Why, you yourself, Senator Quintus, the foremost general of the Republic, would not achieve the rank of Praetor until the venerable age of 67.

It is in Rome's best interests to ensure that every last available dinarii is collected in taxes and trade from all sectors, especially at a time with such a looming conflict. I believe that at the current Generals of the Republic should be exempted from any such requirements of military duty.

When our legions need leadership, it should be given by you noble Senators. However, our cities are desperately in need of efficient governorship. The honorable Publius Laevinius, in particular, is acknowledged far and wide as having a remarkable managerial mind. Both you, Senator Quintus, and the equally generous Lucius Aemilius, also have significant managerial experience. The Republic needs you, but we need you to manage the provinces, to raise legions and to ensure great income to the treasury.

It is for this reason that I urge my fellow Senators to vote for my father, Senator Tiberius Coruncanius. You all know him as a lively man, but few would dispute that others are better skilled in the ways of management. My father would serve us best, not only for the wise policies proclaimed in his manifesto, but also because he is simply the man who we can most afford to spare. In addition, Tiberius Coruncanius has in his service an experienced Drillmaster to lend experience to the Legions. With this aid, my father will be able to march farther and faster than any other. Such leadership will be greatly needed when our armies are still small and scattered. We are at the crux of a time of great military conflict, we should elect he whose abilities most properly compliment our needs!

econ21

05-24-2006, 12:23

[QUINTUS]: Senator Amulius Coruncanius, your filial loyalty does you credit.

And it is true, our current family members stand somewhat disadvantaged by lacking qualifications as students and tribunes.

However, we must make do with what we have and regardless, experience can be a fine tutor.

Moreover, I would have you look at the character of a man, rather than his paper qualifications. The candidates for First Consul are by inclination fighters - eager to see battle.

Would you have them fester away, counting dinarii in our towns while callow youths - and here, I mean no disrespect to your young self - lead our armies?!

Braden

05-24-2006, 12:56

Senators of the House, I wholeheartedly support Tiberius Coruncanius and his family in these matters. Whilst some have spoken of striking North I direct you to our greater threat to the South, Pyrrhus.

It would be nice, if we had the luxury of time and distance to consider our options fully towards the Northern provinces but at this time it is Trade that we must consider to the Northern provinces rather than conquest. Income, Senators, income of Denarii, will enable us to strike at our enemies whilst keeping our homes safe. Whilst the North is weak, it is too tempting to strike at them but this can only mean detriment to our security as Pyrrhus moves against us.

I fear not Carthage, but in looking to the South we must consider Carthage as an opponent to us in the near future.....perhaps within a Consuls reign.

Nay, we must maximise our income by Trade with the North and overseas whilst we raise a Third Legion which can be used to strike North whilst our other two deal with Pyrrhus. The twin cities of Arminium and Aretium will fall swiftly but for these two seasons they are a warning buffer to us of any evil intent from the Gauls.

I also support Quintus's motion - Motion 9 - in its entirety, such action will be a good proving ground for our Generals of the Lower House. Generals of Note we will require in the seasons of the future I am sure. However, such actions are the future and we must act immediately to secure such a future!

So, to confirm my vote on the motions tabled thus far. I throw my support to Motions 1, 2, 5, 8 & 9 as I do not agree with the proposals covered under Motions 3, 4, 6 & 7.

Mount Suribachi

05-24-2006, 13:15

Good afternoon Conscript Fathers :ave:

I commend the honourable Senator Quintus's proposals for the training and education of our young men, though I do worry that we may be burying our future Consul under a mountain of motions. I hope he will be able to keep track of them all when he is out in the field chasing down Pyrrhus!

I also have a question for our 4 consular candidates.

If and when we have defeated Pyrrhus and driven the Greeks from southern Italy, what peace terms will you attempt to extract from them? Roman honour demands that they must recompense us for their foolhardy aggression. Will you seek land? Tribute? What if a satisfactory peace cannot be obtained? Would you take the war to Greek soil?

Thankyou for hearing my questions honourable Senators.

Braden

05-24-2006, 14:12

We must seek and fight Pyrrhus in the open field. Whilst it is certain that his army will be weakened trying to take cities such as Corfinium, he WILL take them. Our latin countrymen, whilst not members of our Republic, are still of our blood. Worse than this, I would not commit a Legion to try and take such a city from Pyrrhus with his combination of Phalanx’s and Elephants such a venture will cost us dearly.

Whilst casualties are unavoidable, we must strike in such a way as to lessen them. We must hit Pyrrhus early and with as much force as we can bear upon him, and it must be done in open fields where we can out pace his slow moving troops and divide to defeat him.

Whilst we start to raise a third Legion from our heartlands we must re-enforce the two we have now and march them with all haste against Pyrrhus, once he is destroyed…and I have no doubt that our two full Legions will do this….we can march our newly raised, third, Legion North to reclaim those rebel cities in the North. From there the Legio III can guard against the Gauls and rearm just as our Legio’s I & II do so from the Southern regions whilst marching upon the Southern cities that claim independence from the Senate.

What occurs after this, I believe should be discussed at a later session. We have now to elect a Consul to carry out these orders and give clear and concise instruction to him….confused political “banter” can only lead to needless deaths. We should discuss what “peace” we demand from our beaten foes….once we have beaten them. My good Senator, we must walk before we run but rest assured that a punitive “peace” will be something I shall vote for, if indeed a “peace” is what we want.

What is clear to me at this time is that we must not allow Pyrrhus to occupy a city and we must not sit back and await his arrival in Capua! We must strike firm and swift and worry about the detail of what tribute we extract from the defeated after the act. Let them mull over their defeat whilst we re-arm for a few months.

Avicenna

05-24-2006, 16:28

Noble senators and friends, although I am not a running member for consul myself, I would like to put forward my views on how the Greeks should be treated. After the destruction of the Pyrrhic army, our noble colleague Sextus Antio should be sent to the Greek settments of Croton and Tarentum, to demand peace. The conditions will be ceasefire, trade rights, ten years of tribute, and the surrender of their Italian provinces to Rome. If they refuse, which will most likely happen, we should immediately send our Legions to take either Tarentum or Croton, repeat our demand, and then annex the remaining city should they refuse.

econ21

05-24-2006, 16:38

[QUINTUS]:Senators, I concurr with the course of action proposed by noble Tiberius.

It may be possible, although misguided, to make peace with Greece before we come to blows. But thereafter, I fear their blood will be up and reasonable negotiation impossible.

Nonetheless, Tiberius's proposal strikes a fine balance between the the need for honour and the requirements of the Republic.

econ21

05-24-2006, 17:46

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Voting on all Senate motions is now possible.

Results will be announced after 6pm Friday, UK time.

No further motions may be tabled until the mid-term session of Senate.

May I humbly suggest that Senators use the following two days to come to a decision as to who to elect First Consul?

Senators who have made up their minds are encouraged to speak out in favour of their preferred candidate, following the example of Senators Amulius Corncanius and Braden.

Such speeches may sway the minds of the undecided and inspire them to support your chosen leader. Indeed one might imagine that your leader may reward you for your support, if his is successful. Of course the possibility that you will make enemies cannot be ruled out either.

Avicenna

05-24-2006, 19:02

Very well.

"Fellow Romans, honourable men! I call upon you today to vote for my esteemed colleague Quintus! His strategy for dealing with Pyrrhus seems wise, and if the worst comes to the worst and Pyrrhus chooses to attack our Italian friends, Senator Quintus' command experience will make him regret the decision! Quintus is the most capable candidate for consulship. His experience throughout the years is invaluable to the people of Rome, and his effecient management of senatorial affairs proves that Rome's assets will be safe in this man's hands! His policies are peaceful, and not warmongering, just like any true Roman's should be! The plans he has proposed are solid and will without doubt lead Rome to greatness worthy of our Trojan descent!"

flyd

05-24-2006, 20:04

I do not agree with the latest diplomatic proposal by Senator Tiberius. I see no purpose in making offers that we expect the Greeks to refuse. It would be a waste of time, and a dishonorable diplomatic trick. Once we have captured Tarentum and Croton, and achieved our objectives, we can make more reasonable demands. I would consult with our diplomat Antio as to what the greatest demands we expect the Greeks to accept are.

shifty157

05-24-2006, 20:37

I do not believe anyone wishes to fight Pyrrhus within the walls of Corfinium. Indeed we well know what devastation a phalanx can wreak in such close confines. But i do believe it is tactically better to let him come to us. With the advantages of the defensive as well as fresh and unweakened troops on our side Pyrrhus has no hope. Why rush hastily to meet Pyrrhus when we can more effectively wait for him to come to us. This will give us time to assemble another legion as well as bring our neighboring states under our rule. Their tax gold will be swelling our treasuries before Pyrrhus even sets foot in Roman land and with such excesses of gold we will be able to finance more construction and more armies sooner.

While trade and proper management are necessary, they would provide only a very small fraction of the gold that the conquest of our neighbors would bring immediatly. I am not saying that i would not seek trade. Quite the contrary i will order our diplomat far and wide to open new lanes of trade. I am saying however that sitting and waiting for trade to fill our treasuries would require a great deal of waiting and we have no such time to spare. Our time is short and we need new sources of income immediatly or we risk losing what gold we have.

I agree with senator flydude in chastising sentor Tiberius on his childish behavior concerning the Greeks. War is not something to be taken lightly. Peace even less so. To toy with peace in such a way by hanging it in front of the eyes of the Greeks is childishly cruel and completely unnecessary and far from as you say displaying our honor it tarnishes it by poking a wounded animal with a stick. Peace will not be toyed with in such a way as to make a mockery of our diplomacy, our government, and our country. Most importantly however our single diplomat has much more important matters to attend to than playing such a foolish game. Rather than making empty proposals to the Greeks he should be sent to distant lands to build good relations and to encourage trade.

Avicenna

05-24-2006, 21:05

So, Senator Laevinius, you propose that we station our army into cities so that we may defend from behind walls? I have many objections to this:
= We currently have three cities, any of which can be attacked by Pyrrhus.
-Should you choose to divide your troops, you will maybe face defeat.
-Should you concentrate all the troops in one city, Pyrrhus, being a military genius, will simply bypass it and siege another city. If you relieve the siege, you will get exactly what you have tried to avoid: battle in an open field.
-Pyrrhus will have strengthened his army by the time he sieges us, he is no fool.
=In street fighting, phalanxes are superior.
-When a group of phalangites march through our gates, they will kill and not be killed due to their spear wall.
-When they march through our streets, they will again be safe. The archers of Pyrrhus will be right behind the phalangites, raining death upon Romans.
-Elephants are pretty much juggernauts when attacking cities, and it will be difficult for our men to even launch two volleys of pila before routing in the face of the mighty Indian elephants.
-Our system of maniples was developed by our forefathers to be flexible and versatile. These are obviously advantages in open fields to us Romans, and we should make full use of them.
=Romans must not be seen as cowards hiding behind walls!

Forgive me, senator Laevinius, for being such an obviously 'foolish' and 'childish' person, not understanding your statement. But how exactly can we defeat the rebels while keeping our men 'fresh and unweakened'? Also, would you not give the Greeks a chance for peace? Us Romans have been threatened by their presence and obvious desires to conquer. Do you propose that we simply offer them a peace after their ridiculous behaviour and pretend nothing happened? This is weakness and is despicable. We are the sons of Mars, and should behave as such! I do not want war any more than you do, but anyone with a clear head should be able to see that the Greeks are not our friends and do not want to be either! War is the only solution. If you want an economy as you say, then the liberation of the Southern states from the hold of the Greeks and then the proceeding unification of the Southern Italian free states under Roman rule is the only way forward.

Avicenna

05-24-2006, 21:11

EDIT: I am sorry, senators, it seems I have made the same statement twice.

shifty157

05-24-2006, 21:29

You have mistaken what i said. Now please carefully read what i say before jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth.

I will not sit with our armies inside the safety of cities. Indeed with the mods we are using there are very few city walls for protection at all. Regardless this would be folly and i never said this is what i intended to do.

I said that it would be best to wait for Pyrrhus to come to us to give us more time to prepare. At which point he should very much be engaged on an open field preferably with our armies on the defensive where we can take full advantage of the mobility of our troops and the immobility of the phalanx.

Battle would be waged on a field somewhere between Corfinium and our cities.

Let me again impart on the importance of this extra time to our war effort. The extra time would allow us to bring our surrounding neighbors into our empire and in so doing these extra possessions would swell our treasury immensely and immediatly and provide for the financial means by which to assemble a third legion. This can all be done in the time it takes Pyrrhus to march on Corfinium and would give us a much greater advantage against him when the final battle came.

The overwhelming financial benefits aside, new possessions in the north would serve to keep the gauls far from an imminent threat to our city Rome. If the gauls should take these lands before us then they are only a season's march from Rome's gates. They would be upon us before we could react. Possessing a provicne between us and the gauls forces them if they wish to declare war upon us to take that province first thereby giving us many turns warning to call up an army for Rome's defense. Not only this but conquering these two provinces would also mean that we would already have an army on our northern border with which to deter the gauls whether by presence or by force.

Another benefit of taking them immediatly would be that we can begin to assimilate them as auxiliaries that much sooner allowing us when the time comes to begin recruiting troops from these cities that many turns sooner. While this benefit may seem trivial now, in a year or two we will congratulate ourselves on having the forsight to begin assimilation with such expedience.

These territories are crucial both financially and strategically and the sooner they are obtained the sooner they will benefit us.

Also notice senator tiberius that i did not say that i wished for peace with the greeks as you so quickly assumed. I simply stated that your method was foolish and unnecessary. Now as i HAVE said before it is very important that we unite all of southern italy under our banner. This includes the liberation of the italian states under the control of the greeks as well as the unification of the independant states.

In trying to find contradictions within my words you have invented your own words which you claim are mine and you contradict yourself.

Avicenna

05-24-2006, 21:54

So, please tell me how I am contradicting myself. I claimed that you wanted peace. Surely, if you will make no attempt to force a favourable peace upon the Greeks, you are strengthening their nation and allowing them time without our interference?

You wanted to defend. If you want to defend in the field, there is no point in waiting. A battle with us attacking Pyrrhus would be vastly favourable. If he gets aggressive, we play defense and take out his army bit by bit. If he defends, we make use of his immobility and rain pila onto his elephants. The rest, the destruction of his phalangites, will come easily enough afterwards.

You mentioned defensive strategies because that way our troops would be 'fresh and unweakened'. If you propose to take the Northern states first, they will not be 'fresh and unweakened'.

Our present two legions are incomplete. The 'completion' of them, if you like, will take half a year, as that is how long it takes to recruit the triarii needed to complete them. Pyrrhus will be able to march on Corfinium within the season if he chooses to. So, by the time we have our first two legions, and far from having our third one, Pyrrhus will have attacked Corfinium, contrary to what you have stated.

Conquering the Northern states with our legions and then evacuating them because of a need to fight Pyrrhus in the south seems to be quite ridiculous. It would make the Gauls definitely declare war, creating a need for a Northern army to defend ourselves. This would drain precious finances, and the underdeveloped cities would not pay off.

Even the time to march our armies to the North and back again is enough for Pyrrhus to besiege, attack and conquer Corfinium.

Unnecessary? Why? We Romans should always give the enemy a way out. It is the correct thing to do. If they refuse to swallow their pride and surrender, we will destroy their influence on Italia. It is fair and just. I will not allow our enemies to portray us as savages killing Greeks in Italia and refusing peace. If the Greeks have learned their lesson, they should evacuate from Italia peacefully, or they shall suffer the consequences.

shifty157

05-24-2006, 22:09

I do not intend on leaving the northern provinces undefended as you suggest. Within time there will be more than enough troops to defend the north and to bolster the armies against Pyrrhus. You make it seem as if we are in infinitly more peril than we truly are. Indeed as i siad before the gauls do not begin with an army in the area, nor do they have the potential to assemble one in such a short amount of time.

Also I have no intention of recruiting triarii as you suggest. There is not the time nor the funds to recruit them. They will have to wait a bit while more necessary troops are recruited.

Though the northern army will have seen battle. The southern armies would have not aside from the taking of Paestrum which is hardly cause for concern compared with what Pyrrhus will no doubt face in Corfinium.

As i said before. Taunting the greeks with empty proposals for peace is both dishonorable and a waste of time. We have only a single diplomat and it would do the empire infinitely more good for him to travelling about the world creating good relations and encouraging trade than to have him taunt the greeks. I am sure that senator flydude agrees with me on this issue.

econ21

05-24-2006, 22:58

[QUINTUS]:Noble Senators, now that the scribes have begun collecting votes on our motions, I feel it is important that my fellow candidates for First Consul and I show leadership by casting our own votes. This will allow undecided Senators to better understand our positions. The alternative - to mask our intentions and make our peers choose among us in a fog of ignorance - would appear dishonourable.

But before I cast my vote, I would like to indicate my choices and also seek two small clarifications.

I support MOTIONS 2, 5, 9 and 10:. I believe they are uncontroversial.

As the theme of my Consulship would be expansion, I must support MOTION 8: and reject the mutually exclusive MOTIONS 6 & 7:. But with the provisio that there is no rush to move north. Pyrrhus is the main threat.

On MOTION 1:, I can vote for the letter of this motion but fear I may transgress it spirit. Suppose the First Consul marched first to take Arretium but then returned within the year to deal with Pyrrhus, would that be violating the spirit of the motion? I would be grateful if the noble Senator Tiberius would enlighten me on that point.

The same doubts apply to MOTION 3:. I would be inclined to move our armies north at first, but then return them all in haste to battle Pyrrhus. Once again, this seems consistent with the wording of the motion but perhaps not its spirit. Perhaps Senator GeneralHankerchief can enlighten me on this point?

On MOTION 4:, in this case, the timing now is clear and so in this case, I must decline. One year is too soon. An academy is expensive and we have other priorities. Two years would have been more reasonable. The honourable Senator Amulius Coruncanius will have to wait a little longer for his schooling. I note, with no condescension, that dear Amulius is in any regard rather too young to benefit from an Academy at this moment. So long as it is built within three years, he will not be forced to remain idle or ignorant when he comes of age. He may run free for a few more years, debating in the Senate and training in the martial arts, as a true Roman should, before he is forced to labour under the scribes in the manner of unfortunate Athenian youths.

GeneralHankerchief

05-24-2006, 23:13

After further debate, I have full confidence in the candidates who intend to battle Pyrrhus with two legions and I realize that three full legions fighting is unnessecary.

The original intent of Motion 3 was to raise a third legion quickly, and send all three legions at Pyrrhus at once. Now I realize that it is a waste of men and that third legion would be better used taking the cities directly to our north, then to be used as reinforcement in case the war against Pyrrhus is extended.

I trust that whichever general is leading the two consular armies will be victorious in this conflict. I therefore urge you to vote no on Motion 3. Yes, I realize that I was the one who originally proposed this motion.

I do hope that Motions 1 and 2 are approved by the good Senators, however. As to Motion 1, I assume that it means marching off to confront Pyrrhus before any other missions that do not directly relate to the King. If it does not, then I must ask the good Speaker to withdraw my "yes" vote for Motion 1 and put it under "no."

shifty157

05-24-2006, 23:17

I have also placed my own votes. Those who wish to see where i stand as to the various motions may easily do so in the other thread.

You may be wondering as to my opinions most specifically in why i voted against certain motions so i shall give you as much information as i can.

I believe that motion 1 restricts the consul too much. While it has good intentions (indeed Pyrrhus must be combatted successfully) i believe it is for the consul to decide how he will recruit and position the armies. The senate may provide goals and objectives, but it is the consuls job to do what he deems necessary to accomplish these objectives.

If i do not approve of motion 1 then i can not approve of motion 3.

I believe that motion 4 is a very good motion however i do not believe that the treasury can support such a large expenditure within the coming year. The construction of an academy is without doubt something that must occur within the reign of this consul but i do not believe it is feasible so soon.

As to motions 6 and 7 i believe i have already made myself clear as to what i believe should be done militarily for the survival of our country.

flyd

05-24-2006, 23:27

I will take a moment to comment on the motions and state my intentions regarding them.

I support Motion 1 as stated, as I believe that there should be no delay in dealing with Pyrrhus, and also Motion 2.

However, Motion 3 I will vote against. Whether the III Legion should be sent south or north or used to defend Latium and Rome depends on the strategic situation. Does the Consular Army need help in the south? Are the Gauls an apparent threat? What is the state of the Gallic army? Is there a threat of naval invasion in Latium? All these questions must be answered before III Legion can be comitted to battle in the south. As they cannot be answered yet, it is not time to make the decision. A "No" vote would allow the Consul to make that decision when appropriate.

Motions 6, 7, 8 are similar to Motion 3 in that they attempt to make a decision too early. All of the above questions still apply, as well as the fate of Pyrrhus, the availability of troops, and the ability of Etruria and Umbria to defend themselves from the Gauls.

Although I support an Academy in Rome, I dislike the fixed timeframe of Motion 4. The construction of an Academy depends on the available funds and the necessity of other construction in Rome. I would leave this decision to the Consul, but if it appears that it is possible to build an Academy without detracting from the military effort, but the Consul has not attempted to do so by the mid-term, I would support a mid-term Motion that would call upon the Consul to being the construction with no delay.

Motion 5 also has a fixed timeframe, but it is simple to accomplish its objectives, and has the support of our chief diplomat, so I will support it.

Motion 9 is a generally good idea, and provides some leeway, which is important as we will at first have more generals than armies. However, as upper house senators become available to take governorships, and as we activate more armies, this Motion should be put into effect, and I support it.

Motion 10 is perfectly reasonable.

I shall soon vote as above, for the reasons stated.

Lord Winter

05-25-2006, 00:46

I give my support to Senator Quintius for consul ship. While all the candidates can bring victory, i feel that Quintius can finish the war the quickest there forth keeping the cost down to the minimum.

Ignoramus

05-25-2006, 01:10

shifty157

05-25-2006, 04:40

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! Senator Quintus has the experience and generalship to defeat Pyrrhus, and to drive him and his despicable Greeks across the sea, back where they belong! The Greeks will run like frightened boars at the sight of Quintus and his legions. Rome shall let the world know who is ruler of Italy!

I am curious as to why you say this. As far as i am aware sneator quintus has never bestowed upon us any concrete plans for what steps he would take upon potential aquisition of his post. I am merely curious as to what you are basing your assertion on.

To this end however i implore senator quintus to give us a detailed view into his strategies as i cannot say that i at least am fully aware of them.

Ignoramus

05-25-2006, 05:45

I believe Senator Quintus said:
"Then, when he is over-extended, we will strike repeatedly with a full consular army. We will defeat his captains, trap his garrisons and slowly dismember his army."
Is that not clear enough? Once he has killed Pyrrhus, it is only logical that he would capture the Greek cities in Italy. Thus, he would teach them not to defy the might of Rome.

econ21

05-25-2006, 07:19

[Quintus]:I am indebted to Senator Antio Sextus for his confidence in me.

I am curious as to why you say this. As far as i am aware sneator quintus has never bestowed upon us any concrete plans for what steps he would take upon potential aquisition of his post.

It is true, Senator Publius Laevinius, that my manifesto is short on detail but I hope my answers to the questions on the floor of this House have filled in some of the finer points.

Nonetheless, at the good Senator's request, I will sketch out my thinking so far.

As I have already communicated in private to those concerned, if elected I would install the Senator Publius Laevinius as governor of Roma; give Senator Tiberius Coruncanius command of a second, Praetorian, army; and make Senator Lucius Amelius military tribune in our first, Consular, army. These assignments are not based on backroom deals, but on an objective assessment of the current qualifications of these three fine Senators. Over time, as explained in Motion 9, I would seek to groom each of them for possible succession as First Consul.

What of Pyrrhus? My inclination is to take a Consular army north to quickly seize Arretium, leaving the Praetorian army near Roma to reinforce Capua and Ancona if threatened. A swift strike north move would net us an additional settlement straight away and encourage the Greeks to recklessly venture into our lands, thinking them lightly held. But immediately after the fall of Arretium, the Consular army would head south and, together with the Praetorian army, we would defeat the impudent Greeks. I will not go into details, as my strategy will be opportunistic. We will watch Pyrrhus and take advantage of any mistakes he makes, ideally giving battle in the most favorable of circumstances against isolated detachments and his callow captains before bringing down the warrior King himself.

Thereafter, I will march south with the Consular army in a series of conquests that will stop only when our troops reach the borders of Carthaginian territory. Likewise, the Praetorian army will march north and finish the work of conquering the rebel states to our north until they border Gaul. Over time, it will be built into a second Consular army capable of repelling any Gaullish invasion. Whether it should then be divided into two - one to cover the border, the other to defend Latium against invasion from the seas - I have yet to decide.

That is my roughly the strategy I envisage us following over the next five years. How long it will take to execute, I do not know. I confess it is largely theoretical, not based up exercises and drills with our troop as I fear such over-reherseasal would dampen their spontaneity and initiative when war starts for real. Consequently I would welcome any comments as to its practicality.

Avicenna

05-25-2006, 08:12

Senator Publius Laevinius, it seems that our bickering has come to no end, as neither of us are able to see the logic in the other's argument. Let us put aside our differences and co-exist in peace for the sake of Rome.

Senator Quintus: I see that you are the tactical expert that I thought you were, and I applaud you for your superb plan. However, I see no need to conquer Arretium only. With the small armies that the rebels command, our present Legions can divide and conquer, taking Ariminium as well, while also allowing Senator Tiberius Coruncanius to gain some military experience. Should we lose men, they can be replaced by soldiers from the third Legion, or, better still, we can have fresh recruits from Rome.

However, I must state my fear of Pyrrhus' army growing, and I urge a pre-emptive strike on his forces to lessen the casualties on our side.

econ21

05-25-2006, 09:42

[QUINTUS]: Once again, I thank the honorable Senator Tiberius for his kind words and agree that combating Pyrrhus is our first priority, which will require great care and some finesse to pull off efficiently.

I have a small nautical query I wonder if anyone, perhaps the Senate Fixer, can enlighten us on?

Over time, Rome must develop a navy both to defend against marauding Greeks and to gain access to Africa. Which settlements are most suitable for developing military harbours? I suspect that - just as only some settlements are capable of having walled defences - so only a few will have harbours deep enough to build the most advanced warships.

It would seem convenient to develop two such military harbours - one on the west coast, the other on the east. Which two settlements should be assigned this duty? I am considering Capua and perhaps Arminium or Tarentum as our two military harbours, but I have not had them surveyed to see if they are physically capable of ultimately fulfilling this role.

Braden

05-25-2006, 10:03

Gentlemen of the Senate, during the evening I have taken the time to examine the maps we have in our libraries, and I fear that much of the arguments presented against marching to strike at Pyrrhus immediately have their foundations set firmly in nothing more than quick-sand.

Pyrrhus is within a seasons march of Corfinium or even Paestum, people have spoken of allowing his army to march upon these cities and exhaust his troops on their walls……I say….WHAT WALLS!

Neither city has any defensive structure to protect it, Pyrrhus’s phalanx’s will utterly destroy the valiant defenders with little or no loss and by the time we DO act Pyrrhus, not being a fool , would have erected his own defences around the city!

We must march the two Senate legions South will all haste and confront him before he has the chance to take one of these settlements, or at the very least, before he has another season in which to prepare the defence of a city.

To our North lie the cities of Arretium and Ariminum, it is to OUR advantage that the citizens have yet to erect fortifications, we should raise a third legion from our garrisons and add whatever additional troops we can raise in a season and strike for these Northern settlements. If we have an agent who can infiltrate them, more the better, thus we learn what troops await us. Whatever the matter, we should hold both settlements within three seasons.

So, cease this foolish talk of “waiting for Pyrrhus”, it is even more clear to me now that it is imperative we march with as much force as we can muster and destroy his army in the open field and before he has chance to take a city and consolidate.

I put it to the Senators that it is only Tiberius Coruncanius, that has the purpose of thought to make these bold moves, that has the ability to perform these desperate acts successfully. It is true that this is a more desperate situation than many in the Senate have been fit to see….secure behind the strong and tall walls of Rome, within these cloistered walls of the Senate buildings you have forgotten that the Plebeian on the frontier does not have the luxury of such protection, we are their only hope for protection, Tiberius Coruncanius, is their hope of salvation and for the expansion and security of our Republic in the next 10 years.

Need we discuss this much further? The actions we MUST take are abundantly clear to me, as is which member of the Lower House is capable of performing those actions.

As to the issue of negotiation with the Greeks.

Such talk is folly, why even waste the time of our diplomats by approaching the Greeks with an offer that we already know they will refuse?? Such time is better spent sending diplomatic overtures to other neighbours that we are not in direct conflict with, the Carthaginians perhaps? I know this may not be a popular suggestion but even the stinking Gauls would be a better target for our diplomatic Corp!

I feel that IF we make such an offer to the Greeks we will destroy what little opportunity we have of later building a peace once they have been expelled from our lands, as we will greatly offend their nature. I say we cast them from our shores and allow them to consider the matter as closed for a good time, then we shall approach them, not as aggressors, but as civilised neighbours who have but claimed back what was theirs to start with. The Greeks can remain in their own lands, whilst we will have only taken what is ours by birth. The Greeks will understand our use of force at this time, and welcome us in a few years to come as honoured equals.

Such are my arguments, at this I close my speech and leave it open to the Senate to discuss and ask questions as they see fit.

econ21

05-25-2006, 10:25

[QUINTUS]: Senator Braden, your impatience to get at our enemy and your desire to see our borders expand is admirable. But while wrestling in your youth, did not your learn to use your enemy's strength against him?

Yes, Pyrrhus will quickly overrun Corfinium and Paestum. But in so doing he will take losses - the term Pyrrhic victory has not been coined for nothing. More importantly, he will surely divide his army in order to take both prizes. And when he marches on us, as again I agree he will quickly do, he will further deplete his armies due to the requirement to garrison his new conquests. Why, he may even tarry awhile in one of them himself, leaving inexperienced captains to lead the invasion of our lands. His probes will reach Capua, but its walls will hold them for a season. Ancona is further away from him and so we will have sufficient notice if he marches on it. The full Consular army and the Praetorian army I propose to bring against him are protection enough for Latium - you need not be unduly alarmed.

Your valour and concern is admirable, but I urge you - we must not strike hastily. To march south now will compell Pyrrhus to keep his army concentrated and perhaps even reinforce it so that it rivals a Consular army in size. Attacking his army while it is concentrated will cost us dear, though I am sure we will nonetheless prevail. My Fabian strategy of delay and counter-strike will cost us less in Roman blood.

And one final point, good Senator: regrettably some settlements can never be made properly defensible by walls. It is not a function of the size or resources of the settlement, but simple geography. If you consult the Senate library, information has been submitted by our scribes that implies that no settlement currently without defensible walls will ever be capable of building them. Hence, your haste to move before defences are constructed is without foundation.

Braden

05-25-2006, 10:51

Senator Quintus, by defensive measures I mean any fortifications….they do not need to be around a city, is it not our own practice to make a fortified enclosure for our armies should they venture into potentially hostile territory?

I have to concede though that I have lent much to conjecture on what Pyrrhus plans. In extreme, it is possible that he will not even march his army further North, but it is clear none in the Senate trust to this possibility.

Likewise, I do not believe that Pyrrhus, being a commander of note, will weaken his army to take two lightly defended cities at the same time. He is a canny commander and it would be foolish of him to weaken his army so close to the boarders of such a mighty foe as the Republic….that would not be the act I would commit, I do not feel Pyrrhus will make such a mistake. Would you err so?

Time.

It is true I ask for haste, but I have no delusion as to the speed we can effectively react. As has been stated before, I believe by your good self, our current Legions are “under strength” and require re-enforcment.

Whilst I do not accept that Pyrrhus will suffer more than a handful of casualties taking the cities to the South, I accept your call for less “haste” in our deployment. However, I urge us to march our two legions South immediately after they are at full compliment. Pyrrhus will either take Corfinium or Paestum but by the time we meet him he will be refused the other by our legions.

With two legions Pyrrhus can be encircled and his retreat cut off, re-enforcements refused passage to him and he will be utterly destroyed.

Pyrrhus will act first in this play of Greek Tragedy but we must move against him before the end of the next season, lest he capture both cities AND have a re-enforced army. Any moves to gain territory in the North can wait until we have a third legion available for this task, such a move also provides homeland security against any bold naval landings as well as potential re-enforcements for our legions attacking Pyrrhus.

Where ever Pyrrhus strikes we must march to meet him before he has time to strike a second time.

A hunter does not wait for the Lion to kill more of his cattle Quintus, he takes up the bow and dagger and marches forth to protect his homestead. Do we forget these are rightful citizens of the Republic? It is true they have lost their way but, like lost cattle, they will return to their stockade once the fears of night approach them.

Senator Quintus, you appear to be willing to allow Pyrrhus the freedom to take those settlements occupied by our kin to the South and await his armies arrival at the very gates of our own Republic…

…I had expected better from one such as you, it is certainly a stance I cannot support.

Mount Suribachi

05-25-2006, 11:11

Senator Quintus, your proposal to build a deep port on both coasts of Italia is a sensible one, however I disagree with the choice of Capua. That city has long been the place were we train our troops - why break with that city's proud military tradition. Given the desire of many of our Senators to conquer Italia in as short a time as possible, I'm sure that a suitable port on the west coast can be found soon enough.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-25-2006, 13:48

My fellow senators,

I have been unable to attend this college yeasterday due to my military duties. In the meantime I have been critized for lack of detail of my military strategy. Therefore I would ask you to hear me as I will explain them in detail.

What worries me, my lords, is that many of you do not seem to understand how vulnerable our nation is to attack. The city of Ancona, for example, lacks city walls, as do the cities of our rebellious italian cousins. Wild talk of rushing our armies through the peninsula is therefore folly. The moment our troops are out of reach of our frontiers, our enemies would rush into our country and lay waste to our cities. Instead a careful strategy is needed, ensuring we always drive our enemies before us, and that no enemy armies can slip by us and threathen our cities. Even so, there is a real danger of a naval invasion of our homeland while our armies are down south, pressing the enemy toward the sea. Also consider that our walled cities are not safe. The elephants that Pyrrhus has brought can break down our gates without requiring a siege. I beg you to reflect on this, and so consider my strategy more fully.

Due to the grave danger we are in right now, I see no other alternative, than to move all our available military assets down south immediately, leaving a tiny garrison in all our cities. I would merge all our troops in two legions, led by myself Lucius Amelius and senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) and attack Corfinium immediately. We should be able to take this town with insignificant losses. Pyrrhus would not dare attack us right away, as we would have a great numerical advantage and he is no fool.
I would send the senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Capua and the senator Quintus (econ21) to govern Rome itself, as I outlined in my previous speeches. I would send out spy down southeast and our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) down southwest to provide intelligence on Greek army movements. The moment our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) is no longer required down south he would strike out eastward.

The next season my moves would depend greatly on Pyrrhus his movements. If he should ship part of his army back to Greece, I would leave the equivalent of a Praetorian legion just south of Corfinium under the leadership of senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157), to protect the city from a possible suprise Greek attack. Meanwhile the rest of the troops would capture the town of Paestum under my leadership. If Pyrrhus would ship out many of his troops, I would even advise senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to advance immediately south and capture the town of Tarentum. If Pyrrhus would make the mistake of dividing his forces I would suggest senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to attack immediately. Meanwhile my legion would advance along the west capturing Rhegium.
If Pyrrhus does not divide his forces and/or ship them out I would attack immediately with our entire army and crush him. This is a bold move, and contradictory of my earlier plan to make an offer of ceasfire first (if he would give up his colonies), but the debate in this noble house has convinced me it is the best course of action.

Whichever of these scenarios happens, I would have the two legions capture the entire south peninsula, advancing independantly if possible. Whether my advance would stop at Rhegium depends on the strategic situation by then.
Meanwhile, a third legion would be raised and after it was up to strength I would send it out under senator Quintus (econ21) to capture Arretium and Arminium. While this happens I would ask senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Rome or perhaps to accompany senator Quintus, depending on the wishes of these senators and this house.
The rebellious italian cities will be occupied and the greek colonies will be enslaved as recompense for our losses.

Pyrrhus is a fool if he thinks he can keep his foothold in Italy and will be cast out. The Greek people themselves, strangely referred to as barbarians so often in this house, are a civilized people who I would like to see as friends or even allies in the future. Therefore I am quite willing to involve in diplomatic and trade relations with them, providing of course that their presence has been removed from Italian soil.

On the matter of a navy, I agree we need a strong navy, but if we cannot hold our own on land, a navy is a redundant luxury. Therefore I would concentrate on strengthening our land armies before I would start laying down hulls for a war fleet. I surmise that we would be in a position to start work on a navy toward the end of this consulship.

I thank you for your patience, my lords, and I hope that I have answered your questions in sufficient detail.

Avicenna

05-25-2006, 14:10

I shall have to enlighten you, master Aemilius. A quote from my scribe:

The Romans called the barbarians BARBARI, nominative plural of the masculine noun and adjective BARBARUS which derives from the ancient Greek word barbaros' originally denoting one who did not speak Greek or pronounced it wrongly, as if he was stammering [bar-bar].

Later on, however, this Greek word "Barbaros" had the meaning of :
-people not fully civilized and then usually believed to be inferior to another people, land or culture.
-foreigner
-cruel, ill-mannered person.

As for the meaning of the Latin term BARBARUS, we need to say that, when this word came into Latin , it had lost the original meaning of stammering person', but retained that of "foreigner", as "not-Greek" or "not-Roman" and therefore 'lacking refinement, learning, artistic or literary culture' 'cruel', 'coarse', 'brutal', 'ill-mannered', 'primitive', 'rough', 'untamed'.

Let us stop talking aobut barbarians now. What do you propose we do if attacked by the Gauls? Or, if Pyrrhus uses his tactical genius, and chooses to march on Rome itself while our armies are concentrated in the south? The swift Greek ships will enable him to launch a lightning campaign in the north of our holdings.

Dutch_guy

05-25-2006, 16:14

I find myself torn between the candidates senator Quintus and senator Amelius...

Both I deem worthy of command of my country.

However I do have certain issues with both candidates, whoever can make my doubts of certain issues go away will earn my vote. Now I hope that even though senator Quintus already has 4 votes, he'll still answer to the best of his abilities.

To you, senator Quintus I'd say this, in reply to the latest of your ideas and comments :

It would seem convenient to develop two such military harbours - one on the west coast, the other on the east. Which two settlements should be assigned this duty? I am considering Capua and perhaps Arminium or Tarentum as our two military harbours, but I have not had them surveyed to see if they are physically capable of ultimately fulfilling this role.

I agree that in the long term ships must be built, but I do urge you to delay such issues to when you've defeated Pyhrrus. As building fleets is an arduous task, we must have the time to set it as our top priority. I propose we first have complete control of Italia before we start the building of a fleet.
If that is how you think of this also, then we are in agreement, if not, well then sadly we disagree on this issue. I would like to hear your thoughts on the issues I just raised.

Yes, Pyrrhus will quickly overrun Corfinium and Paestum. But in so doing he will take losses - the term Pyrrhic victory has not been coined for nothing. More importantly, he will surely divide his army in order to take both prizes. And when he marches on us, as again I agree he will quickly do, he will further deplete his armies due to the requirement to garrison his new conquests. Why, he may even tarry awhile in one of them himself, leaving inexperienced captains to lead the invasion of our lands. His probes will reach Capua, but its walls will hold them for a season. Ancona is further away from him and so we will have sufficient notice if he marches on it. The full Consular army and the Praetorian army I propose to bring against him are protection enough for Latium - you need not be unduly alarmed.

While your strategy is a good and sensible one I urge you not to let Pyhrrus or any of his captains get close enough to Capua or Ancona to be able to siege it. I find it horrible enough to know that Pyhrrus might sack Paesium and Corfinium and even worse to know he might be able to destroy Capua or Ancona. I however do know that dividing his army gives us the best chance of destroying him, but what If he doesn't ? What if you let him wander around southern Italia and let re enforcements arrive ? What if Pyhrrus get's the opportunity to siege Corfinium and Paesium at the same time while knowing his army is big enough to withstand a full praetorian army.

My point is that I do sympathize with your divide and conquer tactics, and with your Fabian one of letting him exhaust himself on Corfinium and Paesium. But will it not take a force - which we may not have - to take these cities from the phalangite composed army of Pyhrrus, which is difficult to beat -even for us ROmans - in the city streets.
Will it maybe, just maybe , not be better if we attack him in the field, where we can surround his army and destroy it piece meal ?

To march south now will compel Pyrrhus to keep his army concentrated and perhaps even reinforce it so that it rivals a Consular army in size. Attacking his army while it is concentrated will cost us dear, though I am sure we will nonetheless prevail. My Fabian strategy of delay and counter-strike will cost us less in Roman blood.

I understand - as said before - your point of view on the matter, but I disagree with your latter argument. If it is your desire to, when the time is right, besiege and assault the taken cities of Corfinium and Paesium.
I deem that to be a to costly task, we should try and keep theses cities as some sort of a buffer, if that is possible.

And one final point, good Senator: regrettably some settlements can never be made properly defensible by walls. It is not a function of the size or resources of the settlement, but simple geography. If you consult the Senate library, information has been submitted by our scribes that implies that no settlement currently without defensible walls will ever be capable of building them. Hence, your haste to move before defences are constructed is without foundation.

It seems you have taken the time to sufficiently analyse our current settlements, that is a very good and sensible thing to do. And for that I praise you.
It is however a sad thing to hear that no walls will ever be able to be constructed, how will you defend - garrison - these cities. How will you make them safe ? And keep them that way.

I hope I made my issues with your proposals clear enough, senator Quintus.

Now to you senator Amelius I say the following, concerning your latest comments;

Due to the grave danger we are in right now, I see no other alternative, than to move all our available military assets down south immediately, leaving a tiny garrison in all our cities. I would merge all our troops in two legions, led by myself Lucius Amelius and senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) and attack Corfinium immediately. We should be able to take this town with insignificant losses. Pyrrhus would not dare attack us right away, as we would have a great numerical advantage and he is no fool.
I would send the senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Capua and the senator Quintus (econ21) to govern Rome itself, as I outlined in my previous speeches. I would send out spy down southeast and our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) down southwest to provide intelligence on Greek army movements. The moment our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) is no longer required down south he would strike out eastward.

I agree with moving all our troops to the southern part of our noble country, but why attack Corfinium immediately, why not Pyhrrus ?
What if you do manage to take the city but then get besieged and maybe even starved out by Pyhrrus - who is ,as we all know, not a fool and a very capable commander.
I can understand the latter part of your argument, and I can agree with your choices of governors.

The next season my moves would depend greatly on Pyrrhus his movements. If he should ship part of his army back to Greece, I would leave the equivalent of a Praetorian legion just south of Corfinium under the leadership of senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157), to protect the city from a possible surprise Greek attack. Meanwhile the rest of the troops would capture the town of Paestum under my leadership. If Pyrrhus would ship out many of his troops, I would even advise senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to advance immediately south and capture the town of Tarentum. If Pyrrhus would make the mistake of dividing his forces I would suggest senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to attack immediately. Meanwhile my legion would advance along the west capturing Rhegium.
If Pyrrhus does not divide his forces and/or ship them out I would attack immediately with our entire army and crush him. This is a bold move, and contradictory of my earlier plan to make an offer of ceasfire first (if he would give up his colonies), but the debate in this noble house has convinced me it is the best course of action.

So you propose to first attack and take Corfinium, and then pose to attack Pyhrrus while he may even be at full strength ? I do not understand this.

Whichever of these scenarios happens, I would have the two legions capture the entire south peninsula, advancing independently if possible. Whether my advance would stop at Rhegium depends on the strategic situation by then.
Meanwhile, a third legion would be raised and after it was up to strength I would send it out under senator Quintus (econ21) to capture Arretium and Arminium. While this happens I would ask senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Rome or perhaps to accompany senator Quintus, depending on the wishes of these senators and this house.
The rebellious italian cities will be occupied and the greek colonies will be enslaved as recompense for our losses.

How do you propose to finance the raising of a new third legion, which I do agree with ? What are you planning to do with the epirotes and greeks once Pyhrrus is impaled on a speer ?
And what are you planning on constructing in the newly conquered settlements ( I'd like to know the same thing of senator Quintus

Pyrrhus is a fool if he thinks he can keep his foothold in Italy and will be cast out. The Greek people themselves, strangely referred to as barbarians so often in this house, are a civilized people who I would like to see as friends or even allies in the future. Therefore I am quite willing to involve in diplomatic and trade relations with them, providing of course that their presence has been removed from Italian soil.

Ah it seems that I was to quick to react, thus rendering one of my earlier mentioned questions useless.

On the matter of a navy, I agree we need a strong navy, but if we cannot hold our own on land, a navy is a redundant luxury. Therefore I would concentrate on strengthening our land armies before I would start laying down hulls for a war fleet. I surmise that we would be in a position to start work on a navy toward the end of this consulship.

I agree completely

Well that about sums up my questions to you senator Amelius.

:balloon2:

Braden

05-25-2006, 16:38

Senator Lucius Amelius, I have to find myself generally in agreement with your proposed plan of action, but doesn’t it mirror very closely that of Tiberius Coruncanius? What do you offer us that Tiberius, whom I sponsor, does not?

Senators of the House, this talk of worry about Pyrrhus outflanking our advancing Legions I think is a dead-end. The topography of the land to the South means that if we advance and liberate Corfinium this season, our Legions will be in a position to cut off any advance further North than this by Pyrrhus on land. The mountains to the South East of Paestum will prevent Pyrrhus moving along our West coast immediately, leaving him only two routes into the Republic – the central route, North of Paestum and South of Corfinium or along the East coast, passing North of Corfinium. If I was a general in Pyrrhus’s place and intended to move into our Republic, it is the East coast route I would pass through. That said, Legions stationed in or near Corfinium can easily intercept Pyrrhus should he choose to approach the Republic by either route. It is at this point that he should be engaged I feel.

If Pyrrhus advances North as our Legions move upon Corfinium, then the Legate in command will know his intent and correct his tactical position accordingly. I do not ask for further detail from the Consulate candidates as NO plan will find completion once Legions march.

All the candidates have put forward their general intent and we, the Senate, are voting on the proposals. It is, also, up to the Senate to consider who amongst those candidates in the Lower House will best perform those tasks we set them.

I see the only worry for us once our Legions move South to harass and engage Pyrrhus is a sea-borne landing from an unknown quarter. However, if we stop to consider and plan for EVERY eventuality no legions will march forth anywhere and we will find Pyrrhus’s elephants breaking down the gates of Rome in three seasons time. To our North, I cannot see the Gauls striking against us for at least a season, time enough for us to muster a Legion for our own protection from garrison troops and recruitment locally, a Legion I would suggest is then used to strike North and expand our borders.

All I ask now, is that Pyrrhus be engaged, in open field with our two current Legions and before he passes Corfinium and directly threatens the Republic herself.

With this statement, I take my leave for the day. It has been a long a trying period in session today and I feel we have accomplished much and garnered a better understanding of the situation at hand. I may return later this eve to find out the results of all our votes.

econ21

05-25-2006, 16:58

[QUINTUS]:Senator Dutch_guy, I admire the conscientiousness with which you are approaching your task as an elector of the next First Counsel and will answer your points directly.

I agree that in the long term ships must be built, but I do urge you to delay such issues to when you've defeated Pyhrrus. As building fleets is an arduous task, we must have the time to set it as our top priority. I propose we first have complete control of Italia before we start the building of a fleet.

I apologise if I gave the impression that my priority was to build a navy. I was merely seeking information for the Senate library as to the possible settlements that were capable of such a task - as much for the benefit of other potential First Consuls as for my own plans. It has been reported that the enemy is increasingly willing to consider seaborne landings, so I submit that sufficient naval strength on both sides of the Italian peninsular may be extremely useful in securing our heartlands.

:While your strategy is a good and sensible one I urge you not to let Pyhrrus or any of his captains get close enough to Capua or Ancona to be able to siege it. I find it horrible enough to know that Pyhrrus might sack Paesium and Corfinium and even worse to know he might be able to destroy Capua or Ancona. I however do know that dividing his army gives us the best chance of destroying him, but what If he doesn't ? What if you let him wander around southern Italia and let re enforcements arrive ? What if Pyhrrus get's the opportunity to siege Corfinium and Paesium at the same time while knowing his army is big enough to withstand a full praetorian army.

Presently, my spies report that Pyhrrus's army is merely the size of that of a Praetorian army. I will not let it double in size. If he does not move north, after taking Arretium, I will move my Consular army to engage him. I suspect he will find the appeal of Paesium and Cofrinium irresistible, however. In passing I must remark that I find your sympathy for the inhabitants of those two towns reflects highly on your noble nature. But I must remind you that they have refused our offers of protection and are technically at war with us. Sooner or later, they must submit by force and I would rather Pyrrhus expend his men's lives to disarm then than our own warriors suffer needless losses to that end.

My point is that I do sympathize with your divide and conquer tactics, and with your Fabian one of letting him exhaust himself on Corfinium and Paesium. But will it not take a force - which we may not have - to take these cities from the phalangite composed army of Pyhrrus, which is difficult to beat -even for us ROmans - in the city streets.
Will it maybe, just maybe , not be better if we attack him in the field, where we can surround his army and destroy it piece meal ?

A phalanx in a narrow street is a formiddable opponent, it is true. And I would not strike a large Greek army in a city, preferring instead to starve them out. But I have no fear of a city guarded by a small Greek army. Typically, captains leave but one or two units in the heart of the city and fritter others away attempting to hold an open perimeter. A full consular army has four velites or Italian skirmishers. Have you seen what javelins can do to the rear of a phalanx? Even in a city, we will have the mobility and firepower to tear him apart, like wolves bringing down an elk. Moreover, I remind you - despite widespread misunderstandings - the Greek hoplite does not fight in phalanx like a pikeman. He is but a spearman and is inferior to our princeps in close quarters.

... cities of Corfinium and Paesium. ... we should try and keep theses cities as some sort of a buffer, if that is possible.

As I have said, I will let Pyrrhus have the right of first refusal on these rebellious malcontents. But the richest pickings for immediate expansion lie south and sooner or later, these settlements must submit to our authority, willingly or not.

It is however a sad thing to hear that no walls will ever be able to be constructed, how will you defend - garrison - these cities. How will you make them safe ? And keep them that way.

Without walls, I do not believe a small garrison can secure a settlement against a significant threat. Therefore, we must screen such settlements with armies of at least Praetorian size. I will establish a network of forts between our settlements, close enough that our defensive armies can reach the settlements on hearing of the approach of trouble. A network of spies will scout for any potential incursions, giving our field armies time to approach. In due course, a system of roads in our interior will facilitate this defensive network

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-25-2006, 17:43

Now to you senator Amelius I say the following, concerning your latest comments;

I agree with moving all our troops to the southern part of our noble country, but why attack Corfinium immediately, why not Pyhrrus ?
What if you do manage to take the city but then get besieged and maybe even starved out by Pyhrrus - who is ,as we all know, not a fool and a very capable commander.

Pyrrhus is indeed a capable commander and thus will not attack a vastly superior force. Instead I suspect he will attempt to strike out to the west and I will hunt his army down, leaving a minimal garrison to occupy Corfinium. I would strike at Pyrrhus immediately, but his army is still far to the south, and the closest our combined forces can march in one season is Corfinium. Should he suicidically assault or siege Corfinium I will sortie from the city and destroy his army.

So you propose to first attack and take Corfinium, and then pose to attack Pyhrrus while he may even be at full strength ? I do not understand this.

You misunderstand me. The Greek confederation is widespread and there are many demands on its troops. It is quite possible that Pyrrhus may decide to transfer a great part of his troops to Greece itself. If he does so, and a praetorian legion still outnumbers his remaining troops comfortably, I will split the army up and strike at Paestum and Pyrrhus simultaneously. If this does not happen, I will attack Pyrrhus with my entire army, leaving a single unit of spearmen as a garrison. In any case, I will not wait, but move on immediately. Pyrrhus' army must be destroyed before it can reinforce itself from the mainland of Greece and pose a deadly threat.

How do you propose to finance the raising of a new third legion, which I do agree with ? And what are you planning on constructing in the newly conquered settlements ?

I have described my domestic plans in detail two days before, but I am quite willing to expand on this subject, as my views have altered slightly.
During the first few years of my consulship, I will concentrate on increasing our financial stability, especially building traders, roads, and safe harbours. The first priority remains building troops, but we have sufficient budget to do both at the same time if we keep building trade buildings. The roads are of course vital from a military perspective as well. The academy, which this senate seems to want to build as much as I do, will have to wait untill the second year of my consulship, as its building is prohibitively expensive (6000 denarii) and we must recruit some military troops immediately. Should victory be ours, and finances permitting, I would like to honour the gods with temples for granting us victory.

econ21

05-25-2006, 17:49

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Honorable Senators, pray excuse a brief interjection!

The chief scribe has asked me to remind you that the deadline for voting in the elections for First Consul is in 24 hours time. Last time he checked, some candidates had not even voted for themselves. Honorable Senators, do not be shy!

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-25-2006, 17:50

Senator Lucius Amelius, I have to find myself generally in agreement with your proposed plan of action, but doesn’t it mirror very closely that of Tiberius Coruncanius? What do you offer us that Tiberius, whom I sponsor, does not?

My dear senator Braden, I have outlined my strategy and it is up to you to decide who to elect as First Consul. Personally, I greatly respect my noble collegae Tiberius Coruncanius, and think he would make an excellent first consul. That said, I believe I would make an even better one.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-25-2006, 17:56

Let us stop talking aobut barbarians now. What do you propose we do if attacked by the Gauls? Or, if Pyrrhus uses his tactical genius, and chooses to march on Rome itself while our armies are concentrated in the south? The swift Greek ships will enable him to launch a lightning campaign in the north of our holdings.

The Gauls will first take the two rebel cities to our north, giving us ample warning of their advance. In any case, the third legion I will recruit should be quite sufficient to counter them. My whole strategy is focused on taking Pyrrhus out immediately, and making sure no army can slip past us into our heartland. That said, a naval invasion will remain a threat. The third legion will not stray far from Rome just to counter such an eventuality. After the first two years, I recruit a fourth legion which will act as a 'Guards' division and be stationed in a fort just outside Rome. This will allow the third legion to roam further afield, should this be necessary.

Avicenna

05-25-2006, 18:13

Senator Aemilius, I very much doubt that Pyrrhus will withdraw his men from Italia. Given his current position, as King of Epirus and Macedonia, he will most likely try to carve out an Empire in Italia. He would not be so foolish to attack the Successors of Alexander, as their armies are too large. No, my friend, we are his targets, and will be until either he has destroyed, or is destroyed.

Also, how do you propose we finish recruitment of the third legion within two years, seeing as it will take half a year to even complete our first two legions? Not to mention incredible strain a fourth legion will put on our economy.

flyd

05-25-2006, 19:54

Senator Lucius Amelius,

I must say your plan is quite reasonable, and indeed, very similar to mine. But I must ask, what purpose would Corfinium serve other than to delay our army, if the objective is to destroy Pyrrhus? Why not bypass it at this time, and conquer it later, when Pyrrhus is eliminated?

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-25-2006, 20:17

I fully agree with my collegae Tiberius, and thus Pyrrhus and his colonies are my primary target.
The combination of our existing troops almost equals a consular army, and it will be complemented into a correct consular army as we go along. I definitely do not expect to finetune my army while Pyrrhus loots our provinces, but I expect I am misunderstanding my collegae's question. The third legion will be reqruited from Rome and in 8 seasons, it mus be able to put a legion together, while Capua and Ancona support the 1e and 2e legion and provide garrison troops. The fourth legion would be raised when we control both the rebellious cities to the north, the south and the greek colonies. With the taxes we get then, along with the financial structures that will have been build by then, we can easily afford a fourth legion.

And to answer the question of my colegae FLYdude, why not take Corfinium as it is the logical place to gather our armies for the strike at the Greeks ? It blocks our armies easy travel, and I do not believe in leaving an enemy behind me sitting on my supply lines is sound strategy. With the 4:1 numerical advantage we have it should be possible to take Corfinium losing very few men.

Ignoramus

05-25-2006, 23:32

You underestimate the Gauls, they would not stop at taking Arretium and Arminium, but would at once besiege Rome.

GeneralHankerchief

05-26-2006, 00:58

Senator Antio, with all due respect, I think you overestimate their potential. There is no doubt that they will eventually attack Rome (which is why I suggest that we expand there once Pyrrhus is dealt with), but do you really think they possess the strength to take three cities that quickly?

The Gauls will need time to regroup after they take each city, assuming they defeat the garrisons. And it will take time to even organize such an assault. Don't they have blood feuds to settle in their homelands before they ride for war?

Ignoramus

05-26-2006, 02:16

The Gauls have lately been unified; I fear for the safety of our homeland. Do you not remember what happened in 395 B.C?

shifty157

05-26-2006, 04:10

The Gauls have lately been unified; I fear for the safety of our homeland. Do you not remember what happened in 395 B.C?

Senator, that was over 100 years ago. I repeat what i have said before. The gauls do not currently have an army with which to attack us. Nor do they have the capability to quickly assemble one. For now we are safe from them.

Avicenna

05-26-2006, 08:22

With the number of territories currently possessed by the Gallic confederacy, I doubt that they are incapable of assembling an army at short notice.

Braden

05-26-2006, 09:31

Senators, the Gallic question is one that requires addressing that is sure. It would be foolish of us to not consider them a threat; however, at least two of the Consulate candidates have put forward their plans for dealing with this potential threat – the raising of a third legion.

The Gauls live in the fertile plains to our North and whilst they are a warrior culture I believe that this, coupled with the fact that their Nation is still divided, according to the maps I have at hand, means that it is unlikely that they will make the massive military push against us that some Senators believe.

The most I think they will do is to expand South into Ariminum but surely their priority would be to attempt to re-connect their territories by striking West and taking Massilia and Comata. I suspect they do not see us as a threat as yet, they will do when we absorb Ariminum and Arretium into the Republic but at that time we will have our Third Legion and be more than capable of defeating a Gallic army fully twice the size of our Legion.

Senator Tiberius, whilst it will be possible for the Gauls to raise a significant army, they have but three settlements of minor size within a seasons march of Ariminum. Their other settlements are beyond the Alps and cannot directly support those settlements closer to our homes. Even if they manage to raise an army of note and IF they have need to march that army South then I am not unduly concerned, I am very confident that any of the Senators of the lower house will be fully capable of defeating such an army with only one full Legion.

I suggest that the best way to assuage your worries is to vote YES to the raising of a Third Legion and to vote for the best Consul who can lead our, then three, Legions to the security and glory of Rome and the Republic. May I suggest voting for Tiberius Coruncanius, who has the correct mix of Youth, ambition and tactical knowledge to best fulfil such a task.

I am confident though, that whomever the Senate votes to be our Consul, will not “forget” the Gallic question and with support from the Senate will raise a third legion to answer that question.

Braden

05-26-2006, 11:32

Gentlemen of the Senate, I formally put a request to the Library for a full list of our current military units. Whilst we are discussing the potential raising of a Third Legion it would be useful to know what forces we have currently in our cities for home defence, and the potential of some of those units going towards the formation of the third legion and it would also be very useful to know what forces we have in our current standing two legions that, I, and many others are proposing to march against Pyrrhus.

econ21

05-26-2006, 12:16

SENATE SPEAKER: Senator Braden's request is a reasonable one. The scribes have added the requested information. Note that we may currently train all kinds of Roman and Italian units, with the exception of equites - who would first require a stables to be built in Roma.

Braden

05-26-2006, 13:24

Excellent Speaker, I have had a few moments to peruse the information provided and the situation is indeed more stable than many first assumed and aligns nicely with the proposals I am supporting.

I would suggest that should the Senate vote to send both Republican Legions South, that a unit of Velites from Ancona be dispatched to join the Legion currently under Senator Quintus’s leadership. Such a transfer will not vastly hinder their march South as they are close to Ancona and I feel the Velites will add greatly to their fighting ability without unduly effecting the citizens comfort in the city. Apart from that I feel that the two Legions we have now are more than suitable to combat Pyrrhus which ever Consul is in command.

As to the raising of a third Legion, within our cities we have the firm beginnings of such a Legion and I feel that within 2 seasons we will be able to field a formidable formation by instructing the governors carefully we should manage to field a Legion consisting of:

1 x Princeps, 2 x Hastati, 2 x Velites, 1 x Italian Spearmen & 1 x Italian Swordsmen which will be suitably lead by whichever Tribune we choose from the Lower House at the time. Even now we would be able to field a significant Legionary formation as long as we ensure those troops used return, post haste, to their garrison duties after any defensive conflict.

I have conceived what the governors need to do exactly to reach the above formation, but I will table that as a formal proposal after the Consul elections and the current Motions are approved, as such a proposal depends largely on the fiscal status of the Republic at the time.

Now, with this new information, I am even more convinced of the plans of Tiberius Coruncanius, being a success.

econ21

05-26-2006, 18:42

[SENATE SPEAKER]:I must interrupt these proceedings to announce that, with the closing of the polls, Princeps Senatus Quintus has been elected First Consul! Details of the votes for Senate motions are now also confirmed. I briefly hand you over to our newly elected First Consul, Quintus.

[QUINTUS]:Noble Senators, I am humbled to be called upon by you in this time of crisis to serve once again in the role of First Consul. As I promised in my manifesto, this will be my final time in this high office; thereafter I will make way for younger leaders.

I must, in particular, congratulate Senator Tiberius Corunanius for his strong showing in the vote. It is with some humility that I note he attracted the support of more active Senators than I. I hope he will not resent the fact that I only obtained victory only through the greater influence of myself and my valued supporter, Senator Sextus Antio. I also wish to thank my other active supporters, Senators DoH, Tiberius and Dutch_guy. I pray that I do not disappoint the confidence that they have shown in me.

Now is not the time for long speeches, Senators. King Pyrrhus awaits. We have talked enough. Now, we must go to our posts and prepare for war!

Senator Sextus Antio - there is a boat waiting to take you to Caralis to talk commerce with the Carthaginians.

Senator Publius Laevinus - you must run this great city in my absence.

Senator Tiberius Coruncanius - you must take command of the Praetorian army I am ordering formed outside Capua.

Senator Lucius Amelius - you will ride by side as my military Tribune, as we prepare a Consular army to expell the Greeks from Italy!

Avicenna

05-26-2006, 18:56

I would like to be the first to congratulate our new Consul Quintus. His effecient style of management will surely strengthen our state, and defeat Pyrrhus with minimal losses. I have full confidence that he will be able to fulfill every promise he had made in his manifesto, and we Romans can look forward to a period of prosperity under Quintus.

I would also like to congratulate Senator Coruncanius, who shares the same praenomen as myself. I am sure that he will command the third Legion to the best of his ability, and will not disappoint. I look forward to following his career, and may it be a successful one!

flyd

05-26-2006, 19:25

Congratulations, Senator Quintus. I have little doubt that you will lead our great republic to victory over the Greeks and anyone else foolish enough to attack us.

I'd like to thank all senators who voted for me, and in particular Senator Braden, who campaigned for me without being asked to do so.

TinCow

05-26-2006, 20:05

Glory to Rome! Despite having placed my vote for my father, Tiberius, I have full faith in the abilities and decisions of Consul Quintus. The Greeks will quake in fear at the sight of our mighty legions! Freedom for Italy from the eastern Tyrant! We have elected our consul and we have enacted our legislation. I see great prosperity and success for the Republic over the next 5 years. Our work is just beginning though...

Fellow Senators, perhaps it is now time to begin considering in detail how we shall secure and develop the Republic once the Greek menace has been dealt with. While we have years yet before such a happy day is before us, it is never too soon to begin considering such a complex issue. Legislation and politicing for future consulships can wait, but there is much that can be accomplished while Consul Quintus leads our legions into battle.

Shall we secure our alliances with our Italian allies? Shall we spend our efforts developing our resources? If so, how show the limited treasury be allocated for so many needs? What sort of policy shall we adopt in relation to the vile Gauls? And towards the mighty Carthaginians? What shall we due if the foolish Greeks refuse peace after they have been expelled from Italy?

Such things will take time to debate and I think it wise to begin on them now.

GeneralHankerchief

05-26-2006, 20:16

Alas, it seems as if I missed the important Consul vote! I apologize to the four candidates for my laxness- the only thing I can say in my defense is that the bed in my villa is extremely comfortable and time can easily pass while sleeping.

My congratulations to our new Consul Quintus on his victory. I am sure that he will remove the plague of Pyrrhus befouling our homeland. To Senator Antio, I wish calm seas and eager Carthaginians for your journey. To Senator Laevinius, the best of luck on running this grand city. To Senator Coruncanius, may you bring new lands under Roman rule, and to our esteemed Consul and Senator Amelius, may Mars be with you!

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-26-2006, 21:18

Honored members of the senate,

I would like to congratulate senator Quintus on his election and I am honored to ride by his side in these crucial battles. His lead I will follow and let Jupiter strike me down should I fail his trust !

Also, my congratulations to senator Coruncanius, who has managed to gather such strong support for his faction. An impressive display, and people call me a Politician *laughs*. I trust he will crush the Etruscans for us.

I wish senator Sextus Antio a safe journey. May Neptune and Mercury guard you on your travels.

I am also glad to hear that senator Publius Laevinus will look after our beloved city, and our most sacred trust. I will ride easy, knowing that he has his watchful eye on our homes.

No more words now, it is time to let our swords speak for us. TO WAR !

Mount Suribachi

05-26-2006, 21:48

May I also add my congratulations to Senator Quintus upon his election to the Consulship. It is a rare honour that has been accorded to you sir, to sit in the consular ivory chair for a second time, and is no-doubt a sign of the troubled times we live in. May Fortuna smile upon your period in office.

To my father Lucius, I send my wishes, I will make offerings to Jupiter and Mars on your behalf as you ride into battle to take on Pyrrhus.

Dutch_guy

05-26-2006, 23:56

I would also like to congratulate senator Quintus on his election !

These times are a difficult one for our country it is up to you to make sure we get through them in one piece.

Also good luck - which I'm sure you won't need - to Sextus, the Carthaginians may seem barbaric at times, but do try and persuade them to offer their services to us - we'll even pay them if need be.

I also wish my dear colleges Coruncanius, Amelius and Laevius succes in their tasks and hope they continue their tireless efforts for our republic with as much enthusiasm as they showed during the period of election.

:balloon2:

Ignoramus

05-27-2006, 06:07

Also good luck - which I'm sure you won't need - to Sextus, the Carthaginians may seem barbaric at times, but do try and persuade them to offer their services to us - we'll even pay them if need be.

Thank you Senator, Phoenecian isn't half easy to learn!

Lord Winter

05-27-2006, 06:40

Congratulations Quintius in your election as consul, I wish you the wisdom of the gods in this difficult time. I have no doubt that under you leadership Rome will defeat the vile Greeks.

econ21

05-27-2006, 12:05

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Noble Senators, Consul Quintus has now posted his mid-term report and so our interim session of the Senate is open for debate.

As you know, there is the possibility of emergency motions being tabled, but I urge you to try to resolve matters with requiring recouse to prolonged voting.

This session will remain open for the tabling of emergency motions until 6pm UK time on Sunday. If there are any motions, voting will then begin and will close on 6pm Monday.

If there are no motions, Consul Quintus may be back on the field by Sunday night and we may even begin the search for a new First Consul on Monday.

In short, gentlemen, I ask that you seek to direct the Consul via debate and consensus - motions that are not opposed may be passed without prolonged voting.

Dutch_guy

05-27-2006, 12:25

Well I would like to be the first one to congratulate Consul Quintus on his total victory over long time enemy Pyrrhus !

Well done, the people of Rome are gratefull indeed.

Further more I agree with your next course of action Consul, driving the Greeks of our land does sound like the best thing to do right now.

However I would like to debate about what to do next, you say we should head to sicily. But would it not be better to unite Italia once and for all ? Why not head north for now.

I'd also suggest building ports and the such in every coastal area, this will benefit our empire in the long run, we can merely use our central settlements - Rome and Capua - as troop building area's.

:balloon2:

econ21

05-27-2006, 12:32

[QUINTUS]: Greetings, Senator Dutch_guy - the ride from Croton was gruelling but it is good to be back in this august house.

I am grateful for your advice. Building ports is certainly important, although an expensive endeavour.

My geographers will soon post a map of our surrounds, but I believe there is now no independent territory to our north. The Gauls have been almost as busy as we, in their battles with rebels. While war with Gaul may soon come, I do not believe it is in our interests to begin it at this point while we have only one Consular and one Praetorian army.

To clarify: I do not intend to seize the whole of Sicily. The decision of whether to strike Gaul or Carthage will fall to the next First Consul and indeed to the Senate, who must authorise any declarations of war. But the Greeks have holdings in Sicily and I believe it would be unwise to let them remain bordering our lands.

Dutch_guy

05-27-2006, 14:43

I am grateful for your advice. Building ports is certainly important, although an expensive endeavour.

Ah I should have thought before I spoke, what does a port cost now a days ?

To clarify: I do not intend to seize the whole of Sicily. The decision of whether to strike Gaul or Carthage will fall to the next First Consul and indeed to the Senate, who must authorise any declarations of war. But the Greeks have holdings in Sicily and I believe it would be unwise to let them remain bordering our lands.

Well this indeed sounds reasonable, it does sound better to strike the Greeks on Sicily...however that debate is for another time as you said.

:balloon2:

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-27-2006, 14:54

I would like to congratulate Tiberius Coruncanius on his military successes and I have of course congratulated our consul Quintus personally on his mastery of strategy and tactics and his succes in carrying out the will of the Senate.
It is good to hear that senator Antio Sextius has concluded such succesfull diplomatic negotiations, as this war is putting a heavy burden on our economy.
I would also like to congratulate Marcella on her marriage with senator Titus Vatenius and I hope her health and wits improve quickly.
Likewise, my congratulations to senator Publius Laevinus, I hope his marriage will be a fruitfull one.

shifty157

05-27-2006, 21:30

Senator DDW. You are mistaken. I was not amrried nor were any of my children.

My congratulations to Quintus on a successful victory over Pyrrhus and i hope the remainder of his campaign goes equally as well.

I must ask the senator a very important question however. Have you begun the process of assimilating our new territories as auxiliary settlements yet (with the ultimate goal of complete assimilation)? This is a very important topic as it will have an overwhelming impact on our future and i could not bear to see something so important go forgotten.

Braden

05-27-2006, 22:30

I congratulate you Senator Quintus on your sucesses and your election to Consul.

As you know I was a firm believer that Pyrrhus would not split his forces as you foresaw, as it turns out I was correct in this matter. Results speak louder than words and you defeat of Pyrrhus is something to shout from the highest peaks!

As the Senate have touched on your proposal to enter Sicily would like to table a motion for the Senate to discuss.

Motion:

That we do not enter Sicily but secure the Italian peninsular from the Greeks and, instead, advance upon the Gauls in the North.

The reasons behind this proposal are, firstly, we have just gained trade rights with Carthage, a rich country. I strongly feel that any attack in Sicily will enrage them.

Secondly, the Gauls inhabit a fertile part of our country. The flood plains of the North are a potentally good source of income in the future. Coupled with this, I do not like our "rear" exposed whilst our main armies are so far away in the South and potentially across a sea.

I trust I have gone against any protochols by placing this motion thus.

econ21

05-27-2006, 22:54

[SENATE SPEAKER]: We have an emergency motion tabled by Senator Braden:

EMERGENCY MOTION #1: That we do not enter Sicily but secure the Italian peninsular from the Greeks and, instead, advance upon the Gauls in the North.

Are there any seconders for this motion?

GeneralHankerchief

05-27-2006, 23:03

Good Consul Quintus, I am glad that you prepared for the worst, even though the luck of the Gods were with you that glorious day. Many congratulations for ridding our peninsula of the scourge!

I do not second Senator Braden's motion. I say, send the Greeks to Greece! A hold in Sicily will be extremely beneficial as far as money, as it provides us with a direct land link to Carthaginian holdings. Also, it will be a good place to launch an attack upon Carthage after the Gauls have been dealt with.

Emergency Motion #2: That the Consular Army under Quintus seizes the settlements in Sicily under Greek control, while the Praetorian Army moves to take Jenuensis.

econ21

05-27-2006, 23:25

[QUINTUS]: Senators, it is with regret that I must come here to dissent from some of the counsel you have received.

Senator Publius Laevinius, to answer your question directly - no, we have not yet begun the process of assimilating our conquests. My priorities have been securing the loyalty of these provinces through establishing temples and then prompting trade and population growth through traders and mines.

In the medium term, I envisage continuing to rely on our Roman provinces to fuel our armies - being able to train three units each season seems sufficient, given our limited means. Moreover specialising our troop training will allow all our new recruits to have superior armour provided by the armourers I intend to construct. Our captured provinces I see as having a largely economic, rather than military role. Once our economic base is secure, then assimilating occupied provinces can be afforded but it is not currently a priority.

Senator Braden, I thank you for your congratulations on our victory against Pyrrhus. But do you suggest that I feinted and parried with Pyrrhus for two whole years to no avail? You forget, Sir, that in the end he did divide his army in one crucial respect - he divided it from its leader. The force I confronted outside Corfinium was led by a mere Captain, rather than the esteemed Epirote King. True, the King made it back to the battlefield in time to meet his end there, but I believe this lack of leadership helps explain our low casualties that day.

As to your motion, I confess it seems the height of folly - to stay my hand now, when I am about to drive the Greeks from our land borders once and for all. I believe the straits of Messina are sufficiently narrow that the Greeks may pass to and from Italy without the assistance of their navy. If we do not see this through, taking Messina and Syracuse, the Greeks will always be mounting expeditions such as that of Pyrrhus against us. Recall that this campaign will be very hard and that each of our rivals receives extra taxes worth 10,000 gold each season. I would rather the Greeks spend their gold battling the Macedonians or some other foe closer to their home, than spend it fighting us.

I opposed the previous motion to maintain Arretium and Arminium as a buffer against the Gauls. And I oppose your motion on the same grounds. Our destiny is to expand. If that brings us into contact with potential aggressors, then so be it. We will strike them down as I have struck down Pyrrhus. We have nothing to fear from Carthage or Gaul. Rather establishing early supremacy over them will ensure our future security when dealing with the greater threats to the east - the heirs of Alexander: Macedon, Seleucia and Egypt.

Senators, I urge you, do not tie my hands when we are so close to victory.

econ21

05-27-2006, 23:41

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Senator GeneralHankerchief, Jenuensis is now held by Gaul. Are you, like Senator Braden, proposing a declaration of war on Gaul?

I would also like to bring news that may be pertinent. General Tiberius Coruncanius has reported taking Paestum, although the fighting in the streets was bitter and our Praetorian army lost 184 men.

GeneralHankerchief

05-27-2006, 23:51

Consul Quintus, I did not realize these two newest developments had taken place. It would be suicide to attack the Gauls with a now-depleted Praetorian army. Emergency Motion 2 is withdrawn.

However, I must say that Jenuensis is far too close to Rome for my liking. If they are to attack my estate in the countryside might be destroyed! This is not a formal motion, but Consul: I urge that you deal with the Gauls using extreme caution. We do not want a war with these people until our armies are ready for it.

flyd

05-28-2006, 00:16

Senator Braden, I fear your motion would end the war against the Greeks prematurely and not allow us to exploit our victory against Pyrrhus fully, and that is something we must not do. We have the Greeks on the run, we must not stop advancing until we can advance no further. That will occur when we capture all Greek posessions accessible by land, which includes Syracuse, as we have the ability to ship our army across the Strait of Messina, but not to Epirus. To stop any earlier is to not take full advantage of the situation.

I understand you worry about Carthage, but they would be much more worrisome if they were to capture Messina and Syracuse. That must be prevented at all costs, even at the cost of war. Sicily should be considered an extension of Italy. He who controls it can invade Italy at will and with no warning. Indeed, a war with Carthage would be primarily over Sicily. If we were to capture Sicily, our army would be but one season's boat ride away from Carthage itself. Although I don't advocate that we should attack Carthaginian Sicily at this time, we must prevent them from taking all of Sicily, and also expel the Greeks.

As Consul Quintus has already expressed his wish to do exactly that, I don't believe Motion 2 is necessary.

A related issue I would like to bring up at this time is the pathetic state of our fleet. As a war fleet it is entirely useless against either the Carthaginian or Greek navies, and as a transport fleet, it is equally useless, not capable of supporting even a Praetorian army. If we were to get into a war with Carthage at this stage, we would be limited to fighting a defensive action in Sicily and Italy. I believe we must start increasing the fleet size for transport purposes, and build naval infrastructure in our cities so that we can introduce heavier and more capable ship types. We must do this as soon as funds allow.

However, the Speaker should note that I do not wish this to be a formal motion at this time, but merely a suggestion to the Consul, and to introduce the topic for discussion by the senate.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 00:16

Now GeneralHankerchief has withdrawn his motion I propose emergeny motion 3 :

We must drive the greeks from Sicily, and not go to war with Gaul.

The reason for this is simple. We must not devide our attention on two enemies, but concentrate on driving the Greeks from Italy altogether. The reason this motion is not more specific is that I leave the implementation of this goal up to the first consul. I do advise the first consul to enter Sicily only in consular army strength at least, as the Cartheginians have powerful armies and might strike at us if we appear weak.

econ21

05-28-2006, 00:34

[QUINTUS]: Senator Lucius Amelius, I am in complete agreement with your motion. But for that reason, I would ask that you withdraw it - it mandates me today something that I already set upon doing!

My wish is that Emergency motion #1 is not seconded, we can conclude this mid-term session without requiring any voting and so I can return to the field on Sunday night. If our progress is rapid, we may begin looking for a new First Consul on Monday.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 03:01

I retract motion #3.

Ignoramus

05-28-2006, 09:51

I propose Motion #4

MOTION #4. I, Sextius Antio, move that we besiege Syracuse, take it, exterminate the populace, sack the city by destroying all principle buildings, and then withdrawing, and leaving Syracuse independent.

I shall provide an explanation in due course, as I do not have the time now.

Avicenna

05-28-2006, 10:37

Congratulations on a successful term so far, Consul Quintus! I apologise for not congratulating you sooner, for I have been busy practicing horse archery with a few Eastern friends of mine. I am delighted to hear of the destruction of Pyrrhus, as this means that the unification of Italia is inevitable!

:smash: Senator Antio, I must disagree with your view. I believe that Syracuse is, after all, a Sicilian city, and so must be treated differently from the other Greeks. The noble Sicilians might be persuaded to join our growing state by yourself, perhaps, with a little bit of monetary offering. Syracuse would be valuable to the Republic, opening up many trade routes with the Carthaginians to the West.

econ21

05-28-2006, 11:43

[QUINTUS]: I must interrupt these proceedings with two pieces of information that may be relevant.

First, my spies inform me that Carthage holds Messina. I confess I do not know how this came to be. The fog of war prevents me from knowing whether they have always in fact held this town. They are certainly not currently at war with Greece. This has implications for my proposed invasion of Sicily. If Greece holds Syracuse or some other states in Sicily, we may still use the land bridge across the straits and enter. But to do so now will mean violating Carthaginian territory and, if Syracuse falls, our new possession will be surrounded by Carthaginian provinces.

Second, Greece and Macedon have formed an alliance. I fear this will free the Greeks to concentrate on the avenging the loss of Pyrrhus.

Senators, I now believe Senator Braden was quite right to raise wider questions at this stage. The new information means that now is the time to decide our next move - specifically, whether we seek to expand north, through Cisalpine Gaul, or south, through Sicily. More bluntly - whether we seek war with Gaul or Carthage.

Following General Tiberius Coruncanius's report of victory at Paestum, I immediately marched most of my army to besiege Tarentum. It will fall by autumn. That leaves us more than two years before the election of the next First Consul. The only rebel town remaining adjacent to our lands is Rhegium and that will not require two years to take.

Gentlemen, I believe now is the time to decide - do we target Gaul or Carthage? Senator Braden's motion advocates the former and authorises war against Gaul. I submit an alternative motion:

Emergency Motion #5"This House instructs the First Consul to begin the conquest of Sicily. It gives advance authorisation for a declaration of war against Carthage to be made when the First Consul judges the time right."

Carthage must be destroyed! Do I have a seconder for this motion?

Dutch_guy

05-28-2006, 12:29

I disagree Consul,

I deem it in the best interest of our republic, and for that matter our warchest, to not attack Carthage.

I agree with Senator Braden to then go north, going north will eventually unite Italia - which I deem an important task - and will also not require the building of an immense navy needed for the invasion of Sicily.

Carthage will eventually be assimilated into our empire, but not now.

We still need their money, in the end they will finance their own destruction.

:balloon2:

econ21

05-28-2006, 12:38

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Thank you, Senator Dutch_guy. Based on your words, I am having the scribes assign you as the seconder of Senator Braden's motion. Please stop me if I have presumed too much.

Dutch_guy

05-28-2006, 12:54

I have no problem with that Consul.

:balloon2:

econ21

05-28-2006, 12:56

[QUINTUS]: I would like to address further the key issue of whether we move north against Gaul or south against Carthage.

Gentlemen, I think we are all in agreement that eventually, we must do both. The question before us is one of timing and sequence. I also think we will agree that - with only one Consular and one Praetorian army - we do not currently have the resources to do both now.

My proposal is to take Sicily first, expelling the Carthaginians. There are three reasons for this.

1) Carthage is the greater threat. Gaul is divided by the Alps and the quality of her armies is more inferior. If we leave her alone, she will still not pose much of a danger. By contrast, Carthage has great economic potential and can pay for fine soldiers in her armies. If we leave her alone, she will have a dominating influence over the region.

2) Taking Sicily would mean we no longer have a southern land border. It is true that Carthage may still land troops by sea, but such operations are inevitably slower and more infrequent. I believe we could hold Sicily against sea-born invasion with a single Praetorian army. By contrast, consider if we move north and retain a land border with Carthage (she holds Messina, which borders our next target Rhegium). In such a situation, a single Praetorian army may be insufficient. It will certainly be insufficient, if we intend to take Syracuse and yet remain at peace with the Carthaginian provinces that surround it.

3) Sicily is a more attractive prize than Cisalpine Gaul. In particular, it houses Syracuse. As you will see from a report posted in the Senate Library, of all the ports within the grasp of this Republic, only Syracuse and Tarentum have the potential to provide the finest warships. We must seize and develop these two ports, if we are to build navies that can rival those of Greece and Carthage.

Incidently, my third reason is why I believe my trusted emissary, Sextio Antius, is quite misguided to propose the extermination and abandonment of Syracuse. The port is an invaluable resource which we must seize and develop for ourselves.

shifty157

05-28-2006, 15:30

I do not care either way whether we move North against Gaul or South against Carthage. Indeed I believe that we can do both at the same time. But this not the topic i wish to discuss.

I would first like to pur forth my motions.

First motion: The first step in auxiliary assimilation must be begun in all provinces we have currently taken (from Arminium to Rhegium and all in between) by the end of your term.

Second motion: The previous motion will be given priority over any other building project in these newly conquered provinces.

I was sad to hear that Senator Quintus has neglected this very important task which i believe is a great folly on his part. From the time we begin active assimilation of our new holdings, it will be 15 seasons until we can begin to recruit auxiliary troops from them and even more until we can begin to recruit true Roman troops from them. This is nearly four years and an incredibly lengthy process. Even if Senator Quintus began this process in all of the newly captured cities immediatly it would well into the next consul's term or even later before we would even be able to recruit troops from these cities. Senators, I fear our easy victory over Pyrrhus has given you an inflated view of the capabilities of our own military.
While you squabble over what great military power to attack next you forget that we can still only recruit three units per season in our core provinces which lie far from the front lines. Do you truly believe that we can sustain a war effort with just these three provinces. Indeed, it would quite literally take years to send these reinforcements to Carthage. How do you propose to support our armies without timely reinforcements and aid. It is an incredible folly to think that we can and perhaps only a true defeat will show you the truth in what i have said.

It is imperative if we are to attack any other nation to expand the support base from which we can recruit troops. Not only will the process of auxiliary assimilation increase the number of troops we can recruit but it will allow us to recruit them closer to our front lines. Suddenly it will not take us years to supply our armies with reinforcements but only a season or two.

Because this process is such a lengthy one and we will not reap the benefits for several years it is all the more necessary to begin the process now so that when the time comes and we truly need to assemble an army in a time of need we are not left utterly weak and exposed because we can only call up three units per season. What could we do if the greeks sent an army from their mainland by boat? There would not be nearly enough time to react to the threat. Our army would be a ragtag group of a handful of town garrisons constituted of the too young and the too old. Would you trust the fate of our empire in the hands of such an army when faced with the polished shields and spears of the greeks upon our soil once more?

I most certainly would not. But if we had the ability to recruit auxiliaries from all of our other provinces then we could assemble a true army in minimal time to turn back any more greek attempts ever.

I am sure that you all see the necessity of beginning the auxiliary assimilation of our new provinces immediatly. The sooner it is begun, the sooner we can reap the benefits.

So senators, before you fill your head with dreams of defeating gaul or carthage, ask yourself first how we can support such a war. Where will we draw the necessary forces? Rome, Capua, and Ancona can only take so much conscription before their populations will be depleted. Who will be left to farm the fields and raise the livestock when we have recruited every available man in Rome? You, senator? No, Senators, bring yourselves down from your lofty dreams and goals. It would be a grave folly to extend our borders much farther without a larger support base for our armies.

econ21

05-28-2006, 15:41

[QUINTUS]: Senator Publius Laevinius, your long term thinking is to your credit. At your prompting, I have begun building an auxiliary barracks at Arretium, the first province that we conquered.

However, I resent the charge of neglect. In captured settlements, this has been my preferred build order:
1. Temples, if necessary for loyalty (ideally I seek to be able to impose high taxes on all settlements, subject to allowing population growth)
2. Traders, for income and for population growth in slow growing settlements.
3. Mines, if available, for income.

After this, I am open to persuasion and, if there are other Senators of the same view as Senator Laevinius, I will prioritise auxiliary buildings.

Obviously, Tarentum is a separate case - as potentially the finest port available to use, I believe it is essential to work towards establishing naval facilities there.

However, I oppose your motion, good Senator. I repeat - we have the capacity to raise the core of a legion (1 velite, 1 hastati, 1 princeps) each season. But we do not have currently have the income to sustain such a level of recruitment. My building priorities will give us the income we need. In the meantime, I maintain that our scarce resources be devoted to establishing armourers in our Roman provinces, so that what troops we do raise have superior equipment to their enemies.

shifty157

05-28-2006, 16:13

I realize that for the moment three units per season is sufficient. But you must realize that our position in the world will be vastly cahnged four years from now and i dare sya that in four years we may be desperate for more troops on our borders. I implore you to realize that although now our armies may seem sufficient and able to handle what is placed before them, if we do not begin the process of auxiliary assimilation now, in four years we may find ourselves in very dire straights when three units per season are not even enough to sustain one front let alone potentially several. I do not pretend to say that we need the units now. I am saying that we WILL need the units in several years and I am saying that if we do not begin this process now we WILL be sorely sorry that we did not.

I would also like to ask that with the help of the consul, the librarians should continue to update our world maps and family trees.

econ21

05-28-2006, 16:23

[SENATE SPEAKER]:

I would also like to ask that with the help of the consul, the librarians should continue to update our world maps and family trees.

Regrettably, the Senate Librarian is preoccupied with other duties. However, he will attend to this on his return.

However, members of the Lower House can always make the relevant inquiries themselves. [OOC: download the Senate278S.zip savegame from the Org uploader http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Uploaders/pbmupload.php
and take a look).

GeneralHankerchief

05-28-2006, 17:41

Senators, if I may direct you back to foreign matters for a moment. If I understand correctly, the city of Syracuse is now the only non-Carthaginian population center on the island of Sicily. It must be taken at all costs!

Nevertheless, I do believe that if we approve your motion, Consul, we are giving you a little too much freedom. Rome was not meant to have an absolute ruler. For that reason, I cannot second your motion. Instead, we take Syracuse, watch as the trade profits come rolling in, and strike when ready. We now have potential enemies on three sides of us. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the conflict is put off until it is beneficial to us.

Emergency Motion 8: The house proposes that Syracuse be taken as soon as possible. However, further conquest of Sicily does not happen, and good relations with the Carthaginians are maintained.

econ21

05-28-2006, 17:48

[SENATE SPEAKER]: I am sorry to have to rush my honorable friends, but I remind you all that the deadline for the submission of motions is 6pm UK time (only 10 minutes away). Any motion which is not submitted and seconded by that time cannot be voted on. Therefore, Senator GeneralHankerchief's motion urgently requires a seconder if it is to be put to the vote.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 17:59

My dear senators,

I is good to see such a lively debate. It shows your deep interest in the welfare of the state and does you credit. I would like to say I think both senator Publius Laevinius and consul Quintus are correct.

We will need to increase our recruitment ability as fast as we possibly can. The barbarians to our north are able to field vast armies should they wish. Their troops are vastly inferior to ours of course, but the simple process of attrition will be a danger in itself should we end up in conflict with them. The Carthaginians are the most powerful nation in the mediterranean. Should we end up in conflict with them, we can expect to see the equivalent of a consular army being shipped to Sicily every two turns or so, my military advisors inform me. We will hardly be able to counter shuch a threat, let alone prevail. The best we can hope for is a stalemate. However, to be able to finance this, we will need to improve our financial position. That is why I think senator Quintus has handled correctly so far. I do not think we can win a war in Sicily at this moment. If we strike at Syracuse and Messana, we will not be able to hold both, as we lack the troops. If we strike at Syracuse alone, we will place ourselves in a very dangerous position, as we will leave the route to our inner provinces open, and the moment we leave the city, we will lose it. So it would be a futile exercise and extremely risky as well. We will need to take a strategic location in the south or in Sicily which blocks the route into Italy and guard it with a consular army. Then we can continue the years long consilidation process in relative safety. When we are able to recruit in many of our towns in Italy we will be able to attack Sicily and win the war.

My suggestions are these :
emergency motion #8 :
Let us concentrate on building short-term finanical improvements, like traders and markets, and whenever possible roads. When our towns and cities are equipped with these, our first priority should be auxilia buildings.

emergency motion #9 : Let us try to increase our standing military to four legions.

emergency motion #10 : Let us capture Rhegium and build a fort at he entrance to Southern Italy and station a consular army there.

emergency motion #11 : Let us capture Rhegium and Messana and station a consular army in Messana.

econ21

05-28-2006, 18:02

[SENATE SPEAKER]: This session of Senate is now closed. No more motions may be proposed or seconded. Voting will begin imminently on those already tabled. Votes will be counted at 6pm UK time Monday.

Debate may of course continue.

Avicenna

05-28-2006, 19:29

:ave: More debate while I'm at the academy? This is not a plot to make my father lose support, is it?

Enough of idle chatter on my behalf. :smash: I support both motions that senator Aemilius has put forward, as if we immediately Romanise the entire Roman section of Italia, we will not have the money to recruit those troops! We must increase our economic output, gentlemen. The lands we have are larger now, and so our armies must keep up. In order to successfully counter the Carthaginians, we must be rich enough to keep sending men at them.

This means a powerful navy. If we declare war on Carthage, we must first make sure of naval supremacy. What happens when they destroy our fleets, and repeatedly launch naval invasions and blockades? Rome would be fighting a losing war, and unable to attack the Carthaginians on the other side of the Mediterranean. We must build and sustain a large fleet, capable of cutting off Carthago from her overseas holdings in the form of Iberia, Sardinia, Corsica and Baliares. The city of Melite can be easily taken due to its distance from Sicilia, and we will be able to sail an army there right under their noses.

Due to my policy, I must say that I do not fully agree with my father's strategy. One full praetorian army is simply unnecessary. We could station this Legio IV in Campania, where it will be able to react to an attack on the fort, on Rhegium, on Croton, on Tarentum, on Capua, on Paestum, on Corfinium and even an attack on Roma herself. Another Praetorian stack north of this, aimed at the protection of the Northern states of Ancona, Jeneuensis, Arretium, Ariminium, and eventually Bononia, Mediolanium and Patavium.

flyd

05-28-2006, 19:53

Senators, I believe we are now in a more dangerous situation than when Pyrrhus was still alive. If there has been one folly in the Consul's term to this point, it has been that he has not kept an eye on Carthage. An earlier report would have been essential to give the Senate enough time to debate an issue as important as this.

At this point, I am not prepared to authorize a war, and I believe that those who are are hasty in doing so. We have only now found out that Carthage even holds Messina, we know nothing about our potential enemy. We don't know the strength of their army in Sicily, in Africa, and the strength of that navy. We know nothing about the Gauls either, I don't believe a scout has ever ventured very far north. We don't even know what the Consul's plan is in conducting the proposed war and winning it. Indeed, I find it somewhat underhanded of Consul Quintus to himself propose a motion authorizing himself to conduct a war without telling the senate about how he plans to do that and why he believes that he can win.

I will not approve a war without being convinced that it is the strategically correct thing to do. I do not believe that we can go on the offensive against Carthage after capturing Sicily, because of the poor state of our fleet, nor that we can go on the offensive against Gaul while keeping a sufficient deterrent against Carthage in the Strait of Messina. Until I am convinced otherwise, I will approve no war.

As for the rest of the motions, they are far too numerous, and many are mutually exclusive, there has not been significant debate on the issues, and we are not certain of our next major step yet. As a result, I will vote against all motions.

Consul Quintus should finish securing southern Italy, and take steps to prepare us for war, not the least of which should be the gathering of intelligence on Carthage and Gaul, but also further supplementing our legions, and, most importantly, the fleet, and building neccessary infrastructure, as he sees fit.

Avicenna

05-28-2006, 19:57

Your words are wise, my friend. Seeing your stance on the prospect of war, should we perhaps recruit some young agents to spy on Carthago on behalf of Rome? I know of dozens such men in my home, where my father has left me to study. They would all willingly serve Rome. Even to the death, if that is what is asked of them.

econ21

05-28-2006, 20:40

[QUINTUS]: Senator Tiberius Coruncanius, on the matter of constructing a fleet, some progress can now be made given that I have identified Tarentum and Syracuse as the two ports with the greatest potential for constructing advanced warships. This discovery is one reason why I think it is imperative that we secure Syracuse without delay. It is also a reason why I am voting against all the motions setting out our priorities for spending. In my opinion, we must prioritise neither auxiliary barracks nor economic infrastructure, but the development of a first class army and navy. That will require both armourers in Roman territories and large-scale investments in developing Tarentum.

As to the Senator's accusation of being underhand, I do not yet plan a war against Carthage. I plan to end a war against Greece. We must drive the last remaining Greeks from the lands that are rightfully ours - from Syracuse. But to do that will require marching through Carthaginian territory. All I ask is the authorisation to strike should my Consular army secure Syracuse and find the surrounding Carthaginian settlements lightly defended. If you refuse me that power, then our garrison will be isolated and vulnerable. Further, any attempt to withdraw our Consular army will again infringe Carthaginian territory. This will likely enrage our neighbours, prompting the war that the Senator fears. Stopping now and leaving Syracuse in Greek hands is to leave them both a valuable prize and a way to strike at us in the south at will. Geography dictates what we must do. Italy and Sicily must be secure from any attacks by land. There are no such imperatives to drive us north into Gaul, where further expansion will only widen our land borders.

But Senator Tiberius Coruncanius is correct on one point - I am confident that we can drive the Carthaginians out of Sicily. He asks for my plans and for why I think I can win. I say this plainly, with no arrogance: with a Consular army at my command, I can defeat any army that Carthage could currently field against us. Remember - they, like us, are only gradually mobilising their potential. And while we are able to concentrate almost all our force in the south, Carthage's holdings in Sicily are separate from her both their homeland and their scattered homelands. Just as Pyrrhus was only able to field half our strength in battle against me, so I believe I will be able to overwhelm the Carthaginians in Sicily.

As to the precise plan, the simplicity of the strategic situation allows only one possible plan. Having secured Syracuse, I would strike first at Messana, moving swiftly on Agrigento and finally Lybauem. Our victories would be swift - I believe only the latter city has any walled defences. Thereafter, we should hold. Build up our fleets and prepare to take the war across the seas to surrounding islands and in time, Carthage herself. However, the precise conduct of that wider war will doubtless be a matter for future First Consuls, other than myself.

I urge you, Senators - you have elected a warrior as First Consul: let him fight!

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 21:30

I would like to mention a correction, Syracuse is also equipped with walls. Furthermore, I understand senator Quintus's reasoning and do not think he will fail to defeat the armies stationed in Sicily, but I still think he will be overwhelmed eventually. Where will the troops come from to garrison the settlements he captures ? If he weakens the army by stripping units as he goes along, he invites disaster. Carthage will not stand idly by while we plunder their cities, they will send strong reinforcements. We are not able to do that, lacking auxilia and a navy.
The main threat is this :
If senator Quintus and his army are defeated in Sicily we will have no backup or reserves to counter the counter attack that will surely follow. We stand to lose all we have gained so far.
I counsel patience. Let us strike when we are ready. I counsel you all against war with Carthage. Her time will come later.

flyd

05-28-2006, 21:42

Consul Quintus, I applaud the decisiveness of your plan to drive all the way to Lilybaeum, but I ask you, then what? Without a fleet, you can go no further. At that point, the initiative will shift to Carthage, they will be able to not only attack your army but land anywhere behind you. I doubt the Carthaginians would agree to a ceasefire at that point, so I do not believe that this is a war that can be concluded at this time, which is why I believe that it should not be started. While Syracuse must be captured in time, it is at this time effectively shielded by the Carthaginians. When we are prepared to fight a war with Carthage may we take Syracuse.

shifty157

05-28-2006, 21:46

I support both motions that my father has put forward, as if we immediately Romanise the entire Roman section of Italia, we will not have the money to recruit those troops! We must increase our economic output, gentlemen. The lands we have are larger now, and so our armies must keep up. In order to successfully counter the Carthaginians, we must be rich enough to keep sending men at them.

Well, we will not have the ability to even recruit troops if we do not. So we'll have large amounts of money but no army to recruit with it. What you are arguing is shortsighted and simplistic. You fail to realize that the money for buildings is spent immediatly on their commencement on construction and not when they are completed. There will be plenty of money to recruit more men when the assimilation is complete. But do you propose to take on the entire Carthaginian empire on three units per turn? You may as well propose to lose the war before it has even begun. Our empire does not stretch across any bodies of water and therefore for the present a large navy is entirely frivolous and a large navy WILL drain immense amounts of money from our treasuries. If you propose such a navy THEN we will not have the money to recruit those troops which you propose.

Bah. In four years time when our empire is in dire condition because we cannot reinforce our armies you will all have wished you had begun the auxiliary assimilation of our new provinces now and not waited. Of course then it will be too late because at that point it will take another four years to fix such a grave mistake.

I can only hope that our Consul has enough sense to begin this process in earnest even though the senate in its shortsightedness has voted against it. The fate of the future of our empire has now been placed by the senate on a vague hope. I am sorry if i prefer to place our future in the strength of our armies. I believe that to be a little more substantial in times such as these.

Where will the troops come from to garrison the settlements he captures ? If he weakens the army by stripping units as he goes along, he invites disaster. Carthage will not stand idly by while we plunder their cities, they will send strong reinforcements. We are not able to do that, lacking auxilia.

The main threat is this :

If senator Quintus and his army are defeated in Sicily we will have no backup or reserves to counter the counter attack that will surely follow. We stand to lose all we have gained so far.

These are my thoughts exactly. And who can argue against them? We can not propose to go into wars against vast empires on three units per turn. It simply cannot be done. It is illogical. We must begin the auxiliary assimilation of our new provinces immediatly so that we can gain this capability as soon as possible. Without it our war effort is crippled. I urge those senators who have not yet cast their votes to vote in approval of motions 4 and 5. We must prepare ourselves for the future now.

flyd

05-28-2006, 22:18

Senator Publius Laevinus, I believe you overestimate the infrastructure needed to reinforce an army. Even if at war with Carthage, we certainly do not plan on losing three units every quarter! Our current production can reinforce an army and provide garrison at the moment, but you are right that the process of assimilation should be started, as it is a slow one. However, it should be started slowly, perhaps at one province, and not be given top priority, which should belong to the fleet.

You say that we do not need a fleet, as our republic does not stretch across any bodies of water. And you are right, but if we don't get a fleet, our republic will never stretch across any body of water! It would be like saying that we don't need a big army because our republic is small. But to enlarge our republic, we must first build an army. Just as an increase in army precedes an increase in territory, so must an increase in the size of the fleet precede the control of the seas. And if we are to defeat Carthage, or even survive against Carthage, we must gain control of the western Mediterranean.

One last thing I would like to point out, Senator, is a small error on your part in calling our republic an empire. Some Senators may take offense at that.

shifty157

05-28-2006, 22:30

One last thing I would like to point out, Senator, is a small error on your part in calling our republic an empire. Some Senators may take offense at that.

I am sorry. This most likely results from a difference in connotation. I believe any state regardless of government form that has taken territory through conquest and expanded its borders to be an empire. Perhaps others believe that an empire requires an emporer to rule it. This is not true. An emporer is the result of an empire and not the other way around.

Therefore i regard our nation as an empire because we have gained territory through conquest and not because we have an emporer (which we clearly do not).

I agree with your point as to the navies. We will need a large navy. In time. Not now. We can wait a small while for our navy. But we must begin our auxiliary assimilation now or otherwise it will never be done in time. And so when the time comes near to sail from Lilybaeum for Carthage herself we can begin the construction of our navy because that will only take a small amount of turns and at that time i will fully support you. Before then I believe that auxiliary assimilation of our new lands is more important to begin now.

To put this another way. If we began the auxiliary assimilation now and waited to construct the navy both it and the navy would be completed in time for full scale war in other lands. If we built the navy now and waited to begin the auxiliary assimilation until later we would find ourselves with only a large navy when the time came for full scale war.

Ignoramus

05-28-2006, 23:25

We have two choices:

I. To attack Messana and thus Carthage.
II. To attack Syracuse.

Noble Senators, those vile Carthaginians have driven out Italians. This is a shocking act of barbarity for a civilized republic as Carthage.
However, undue haste may be our downfall. If he advance without a fleet, we may be isolated in Sicily. And if we build a fleet, we may be overrun in Sicily.
I most humbly suggest that we declare war immediately on Carthage! Lest anyone say that Rome was a city of cowards.

econ21

05-28-2006, 23:27

[QUINTUS]: Senators, I hear many conflicting voices and confess I am somewhat at a loss to discern any consensus from our deliberations. I will have to await the outcome of the votes tomorrow evening before deciding my next course of action. But rest assured, if authorised to declare war on Carthage, I will not do so precipitously.

I would like to mention a correction, Syracuse is also equipped with walls.

I thank you for the clarification. I was not clear when I spoke - I was asked to give my plans for a war against Carthaginian territories in Sicily. Syracuse is held by Greece and I would take it before declaring war on Carthage, therefore I did not count it when assessing Carthage's defences. Indeed, the strong walls of Syracuse would actually be an asset in any campaign against Carthage in Sicily, as they mean that we could leave the city lightly garrisoned while we seize first Messina and then Agrigento.

On the concern about being overwhelmed by Carthage, recall that we are capable of producing the core of a Roman legion each turn. Such reinforcements would be sufficient, I believe, to allow us to garrison occupied cities without unduly depleting our Consular army. The constraint will be on finding the finance to be able to support such recruitment. However, I believe rapid acquisition of Sicily may decisively strengthen our economy.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 23:35

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-28-2006, 23:40

Indeed, the strong walls of Syracuse would actually be an asset in any campaign against Carthage in Sicily, as they mean that we could leave the city lightly garrisoned while we seize first Messina and then Agrigento.

I would like to point out to the consul that the Cartheginians are reported to have massive warbeasts called 'elephants' stationed in Sicily, which are strong enough to bash through the gates of a walled city. They will thus not have to siege the city while our troops are occupied elsewhere, but can attack immediately. I trust you will not neglect this in your strategy.

flyd

05-28-2006, 23:42

Consul Quintus, my primary concern over the war with Carthage is that your offensive will become stalled once you reach Lilybaeum and the fleet cannot support your offensive to Carthaginian lands across the sea. This will give Carthage time, perhaps to mount a counter-attack, or to bypass you and attack Italy via the sea. I would be much more willing to go to war if your offensive did not have to stop in Lilybaeum, that is, if we had a better fleet. I do not wish to give the Carthaginians time. When they receive a report about your capture of Messina, I want you to be landing in Africa by the time their senate is done deliberating about what is to be done about defending Sicily!

Ignoramus

05-28-2006, 23:48

Coruncanius, how long will you try our patience! Carthage must be attacked now! If we linger, it will be them that mount an offensive.

flyd

05-28-2006, 23:52

Antio, we cannot attack Carthaginian lands outside of Sicily because we don't have a fleet. As far as Carthage knows at the moment, we are friendly to them. A large army stationed in the south will further convince them. If we capture Sicily, they will know that we're hostile, but we will still lack the ability to attack them further, and will have no choice but to linger! It is then that you should really worry about a Carthaginian attack. What you suggest is madness.

shifty157

05-29-2006, 00:00

I would just like to make a small, but crucial point which might be taken up in your considerations. Construction of auxilia is immensively expensive and timeconsuming. I urge you to vote to build traders and markets first, because they take a short time to build and are less expensive. They provide a deperately needed cash boost which we will need to build the auxilia buildings themselves while paying our troops. Also, the barbarian towns to our north are hardly profitable. The money we will need to spend to conquer, guard and develop them will constitute a cash-drain on our economy. The roads are vital military and also profitable. That said, the very next priority should be auxilia buildings.

But do you realize that since they are so timeconsuming, if we do not begin building them now then they will be completed much too late to be of any use against Gaul or Carthage. Our economy is sufficiently stable to support such expenditures at the present. Our army however may not be sufficiently stable enough to function without them in the coming years. You senators talk about how powerful Carthage is and difficult the war will be but you take no action to support and strewngthen our military for the long term. Every turn that we delay in beignning the process of auxilia assimilation is at least one turn in the future that we will stunt our own growth and expansion.

Senators let me also bring another point to your attention. There have been rumors from the north. From Aretium and Arminium. The rumors speak of Gaulish spies in our towns and villages making inquiries as to our militaries and garrisons and the locations of our major cities. I have given these rumors little credit until recently when i recieved word from our governor in Aretium that a Gaulish spy has been identified within the city. The spy unfortunatly escaped the garrison forces as is currently wandering within our own borders. The presence of this spy is a great disturbance to me. I believe it clearly displays the intentions of the Gauls. At this point, the question is not IF the Gauls will attack our land but merely WHEN they will be ready to. Currently we know nothing of what lies beyond the Gaulish border and I fear we may be shocked and horrified when we find out.

Indeed, war with Gaul is coming regardless of if we are prepared for it or when we would like it to happen. We already know that war with Carthage is also on the horizon. Could we support both fronts with three units per turn? Could we support two wars against two of the largest most powerful factions in the known world on three units per turn?

The barbarian war machine is already moving in our direction and it sits only a very short distance from our city of Rome. We must be ready.

Avicenna

05-29-2006, 00:16

Well, we will not have the ability to even recruit troops if we do not. So we'll have large amounts of money but no army to recruit with it. What you are arguing is shortsighted and simplistic. You fail to realize that the money for buildings is spent immediatly on their commencement on construction and not when they are completed. There will be plenty of money to recruit more men when the assimilation is complete. But do you propose to take on the entire Carthaginian empire on three units per turn? You may as well propose to lose the war before it has even begun. Our empire does not stretch across any bodies of water and therefore for the present a large navy is entirely frivolous and a large navy WILL drain immense amounts of money from our treasuries. If you propose such a navy THEN we will not have the money to recruit those troops which you propose.

Bah. In four years time when our empire is in dire condition because we cannot reinforce our armies you will all have wished you had begun the auxiliary assimilation of our new provinces now and not waited. Of course then it will be too late because at that point it will take another four years to fix such a grave mistake.

I can only hope that our Consul has enough sense to begin this process in earnest even though the senate in its shortsightedness has voted against it. The fate of the future of our empire has now been placed by the senate on a vague hope. I am sorry if i prefer to place our future in the strength of our armies. I believe that to be a little more substantial in times such as these.

So, you propose that we build up auxiliaries. Fine. But then, where will all the money come from? The gods will not shower money down upon us, and our current territories require more troops to defend them with. As our economy improves, we will no doubt gain a larger army to defend out lands with. The process of assimilation can then begin, when our economy is strong enough to cope with the burden of no more economical upgrades and money put into assimilation of the Italian League. You speak as if we are in desperate need of armies to defend ourselves from Carthage. Carthage is currently not at war with us, and so we still have time on our side.

I therefore propose that to strike the perfect balance, we should begin assimilation of any two cities the consul pleases with immediate effect, and improve the economy in the rest of our state to support this project.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-29-2006, 00:19

I find myself wavering due to senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) argument. I would not have a problem with starting the auxilia process immediately in one or even two cities that have a decent population. Still, we will need to concentrate on increasing our revenue in our other cities in my opinion. An Auxilia II building goes for ca. 8000 denarii. It will take us two or more seasons to raise this kind of money at the moment. I wonder if we do not at the moment posess two cities that already have a market and roads ? Those would be ideal and could be given priority above all other cities.

Edit : It seems senator Tiberius agrees with me. This is very pleasing.

econ21

05-29-2006, 00:21

[QUINTUS]: Noble Senators, I have been studying the votes already cast and your will is becoming clearer to me. But I have one question on which I would seek your counsel. It considers Motion 7 - the creation of a fourth legion. My question is this - where should that legion be deployed in the event that I strike into Sicily?

Currently, we have three legions - two attached to our Consular army and one to our Praetorian army. (Here I do count only our mobile forces - not the troops spread across our settlements in garrisons.) Both armies are accompanied by corresponding alae, made up by our Italian brothers. All are somewhat understrength but within the year will be replenished.

Suppose we raise a fourth legion, where should it be assigned? I see three possibilities:
- in the north, with our Praetorian army, to guard against Gaulish incursions. This addition would make our Praetorian army effectively a second Consular army.
- in the centre, to guard against seaborne incursions in our heartlands or to reinforce either the north or the south if under threat.
- in Sicily, to assist the Consular army in its conquest of Carthaginian settlements (again, I do not mean light garrison duties - these will be performed by other formations).

I would welcome any thoughts on this question. My personal inclination would be to assign the legion to the centre, acting as a strategic reserve. However, some of your talk of the danger of facing Carthage counsels against this.

Pray remember, I wish only your advice made on the assumption that we strike Carthage in Sicily and not Gaul in the north.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-29-2006, 00:25

A 4 unit garrison in our northern towns is sufficient to hold of any Gaul army. I therefore propose send the third legion to guard the rear of the Consul army should it invade Sicily, to make sure no army slips past him into our undefend heartland. The fourth legion I'd advise to station next to Rome to serve as a 'Guard' division to counter any invasion in our mainland or to supress a rebel uprising, should it occur.

flyd

05-29-2006, 01:10

If the consular army alone is sufficient to conquer Sicily then I would advise that IV Legion be stationed in central Italy to deter any Carthaginian invasion attempt, or to react to it should it occur.

Avicenna

05-29-2006, 01:25

Legio IV should be placed in the centre of our core cities: Roma, Capua and Ancona. This is almost the centre of our lands, and so any naval invasion can be answered to swiftly and decisively. I agree that the Gauls are no major threat. They are barbarians, after all. One Praetorian army is enough to hold them off. I therefore urge that Legio IV be raised immediately for the defense of Italia against any Carthaginian assault.

shifty157

05-29-2006, 02:04

Why may i ask would any army land in the center of Italy? If we charge into Sicily then Carthage would support its troops in Sicily with reinforcements and not mount a time consuming expedition by sea to Rome. Would you do this in Carthage's position? No. It would be a foolish alocation of forces when all of sicily stands on the brink of collapsing.

The greeks then. They hate us right? Not enough to divert forces away from their wars with Macedon who threatens them on their own soil. Would you send forces off on overseas expeditions when war rages around your own capital? If the Greeks find any reason to send troops in our direction it will be to Syracuse where they at least have some stake in keeping the city alive and in their hands.

The Gauls then. No i wont even waste my tongue disproving any Gaulish seaborne invasion when they are only a two season march from Rome as it is.

So I say that this army should be assigned to one of the two fronts. Personally i dont believe that so few troops as you state could hold off a Gaulish invasion and therefore I think some reinforcements to the north would be very well placed. I also believe that a Consular army with reinforcements is more than adequate to conquer Sicily.

Now I return to Senator Tiberius' argument that we are not currently at war with Carthage or Gaul and therefore we do not need to begin auxiliary assimilation. How many times do i need to repeat myself that i know this. WE DO NOT NEED THE EXTRA TROOPS NOW. But in 15 seasons (4 years) we will. Alot can happen in 15 seasons. Indeed in 15 seasons we may be landing on the shores of Carthage herself. In 15 seasons we may be in the heart of the Gaulish empire. In 15 seasons we may have landed another army onto the shores of Greece. This is all possible because 15 seasons is a huge amount of time. What will you do then when we are forced to divide our meager three reinforcements between Gaul and Carthage? What will you do then when those same reinforcements are forced to undertake a journey of several years just to reach the front line? You speak of wasting money. I think it is a huge waste of money to pay our troops every season to march 2 years and never once lift their swords just to reach the front line.

But again I am thinking of the future and you are thinking of only the present.

Where will the money come from? Do you really expect our armies to sit around for four years languishing in dissuse? No. They will be conquering more provinces in Sicily and northern Italy. We will agin our funds from all of these new holdings which will literally double the size and income of our empire. Suddenly a few thousand denari isnt as big an expense when our treasury makes an income of in excess of 10,000 denari every season!

Or we could wait until our treasury reaches this amount and begin the auxiliary assimilation then. And then we can have the money and then we can wait the 4 years. But by the time they are done only one of two things could have happened. The first being that the war is completely over. The second and far more probable being that our stingy reinforcements were not sufficient to withstand the entire military weight of the Carthaginian empire and were decisively defeated resulting in a fearful stale mate or worse a complete loss of the war.

We must begin now so that we can reap the benefits before it is too late for them.

Im sure that there are buildings in many of the previously Greek cities which are of no use to us and can be disassembled or sold for more money.

econ21

05-29-2006, 02:28

QUINTUS: Senator Publius Laevinius, on a point of information I regret to remind you that Greece and Macedon are currently allied. I agree that a naval landing in the centre of Italy by Carthage is unlikely. If they come, it will surely be near Lilybauem as it is closest to their homeland.

However, I believe a landing by Greece in the centre or south - near Tarentum - is a contingency we must prepare for. It is only a stone's throw away from their territory in Illyria, whereas Syracuse is several season's passage. Armies in the north or in Sicily would not be able to respond in time, particularly given the lack of a road network.

Avicenna

05-29-2006, 08:21

So, senator, you propose that we only assimilate. This costs an incredibly high amount of money, which I doubt we could manage while we 'conquer more provinces in Sicily and Northern Italy'.

Are you so naive to believe that wars will benefit our treasuries immediately? Wars are expensive, as they cost trade with our neighbours, and cost the lives of many good Romans. Many new recruits will have to be drafted to support a war against Carthage, and I doubt that we will gain very much from Sicily when our economy is weak. Why? Because we would still be poor, and Carthage has the finest navy in the sea. Sicily's riches are due to its trade routes, not due to many abundant resources.

When Carthage blocks all the trade routes, I then ask you. How would we attack the Carthaginian homeland? How would we gain enough funds to build a fleet to defend our Italian holdings and transport troops to Africa? The answer is, we cannot. If all of the senators were as warmongering as you are, then Rome is a lost cause and will be doomed.

I will not allow Rome to fall, and the lack of funds is the surest road to destruction. Do not believe that we are invincible, having conquered much of Italia. Pyrrhus was but one general and a first test for Rome. The Carthaginians will be able to muster many more troops than Pyrrhus, and our army will be but one third larger than when we faced Pyrrhus.

Mount Suribachi

05-29-2006, 09:41

Conscript Fathers, what is this blood-lust that has come over you all?
We have not even finished the war with Greece and yet some of you are full of talk of wars with Carthage and Gaul! Thankfully there are some true Romans out there with some common sense such as Publius Laevenius and my father Lucius Amelius. War with Carthage at this point would be madness! Our armies have not the strength to fight a long war with such a superpower, and our navy nowhere near strong enough to conduct a war with anyone, let alone Carthage!

As for those of you who propose war with Gaul, you contradict yourself noble Senators! On the one hand you tell us that they are a threat who must be destroyed, then in the same breath you tell us they are weak and will be easily conquered! Which is it Conscript Fathers? I support those who say that war with Gaul will just add a further drain to our resources as we must rebuild their Barbarian settlements to civilized Roman standards.

And I must add, what have Carthage and Gaul done for us to declare war on them with such surprise and haste? Oh, I know all about our history with those two, I haven't forgotten. But,

*bangs fist*

THIS IS NOT THE ROMAN WAY!!!!!!!

I repeat Conscript Fathers, this is not the Roman way!!!

I urge our Consul Quintus to pursue a policy of consolidation, of Romanising our Italian acquisitions, of building our strength for the trials which lie ahead. And of finishing the war with Greece! How can some of you talk of war across the mediterranean, when at any moment the Greeks may stab us from behind? We must first finish the war with Greece, either through a diplomatic agreement, or by taking this war to their shores, before we do anything else. Sadly, I was unable to attend the Senate yesterday, for if I was I would have proposed a motion in this regard.

*sits down*

Ignoramus

05-29-2006, 09:51

I do not like war with Carthage, but unless we act, they shall attack us. Knowing that consuls want to gain a favour and popularity by victorious wars, it is no surprise that some of the future candidates are supporting this.
And young Manius, should you not be in bed asleep? I am deeply shocked and suprised that your father let you come to the Senate at this late hour, and even more surprised that he let you, a minor, express his own opinion in such a forceful way, against a noble Senator, and your elder.

Mount Suribachi

05-29-2006, 10:07

I do not like war with Carthage, but unless we act, they shall attack us.

But we are in no position to support a war with Carthage! We may quick and easy gains on Sicily, but once they have regrouped from that, their ability to recruit large armies, and their strong navy give them the ability to strike us at will! If war must come, at least let us make sure we are strong enough for it!.

And young Manius, should you not be in bed asleep? I am deeply shocked and suprised that your father let you come to the Senate at this late hour, and even more surprised that he let you, a minor, express his own opinion in such a forceful way, against a noble Senator, and your elder.

These are exceptional times Sextus. Though the Mos Maorium forbids it, you entered the Senate before the age of 30, and were furthermore sent on an important diplomatic mission. Rome does not currently have enough patricians of noble birth to go around, so underage men like you and I must step into the breach.

Mount Suribachi

05-29-2006, 10:11

Conscript Fathers! I believe I have a solution to the problem of trying to take Syracuse, and ending the war with Greece!

Perhaps we could send Sextus Antio, on a diplomatic mission to Greece to offer them a ceasefire, in return for which we would receive Syracuse. Roman honour would be satisfied with such a peace deal, and we would receive the strategically vital deep water port that we crave. Let me know your thoughts Conscript Fathers.

Avicenna

05-29-2006, 10:20

That is a wise suggestion, my friend, but I do not think the Greeks will give in so easily. They would most likely demand their former Italian possessions should we sue for peace, and perhaps even demand monetary compensation for their loss.

I agree with you though, Manius, in that war is unnecessary. It will happen, of that I am sure. But why should we Romans be the aggressors? Unless they violate a treaty or attack a friend of Rome, I see no reason to attack Carthage yet. We should consolidate our holdings on the Italian peninsula for now, assimilating some of the peoples and strengthening the economy of the rest of Italia. Gold is vital to our survival, and so must be put before the complete assimilation of Italia and the granting of Roman citizenship to them.

For now, I suggest that we follow my father's suggestion, and take a defensive stance on the mainland. Only when we are powerful enough can we attempt to fight the mighty Carthaginians. We must be patient, and build up our strength while the Phoenicans wrestle with the Numidians and Iberians for control of both their homelands respectively. We should not actively seek war with Carthage, but I suggest an alliance with her enemies, to enable us to fight one enemy at a time.

Amvlivs Tiberivs Coruncanivs

Ignoramus

05-29-2006, 10:20

I disagree Senator Manius, though I am currently in the wilds of Scythia, and long to see civilization again, Rome has need of my services. It takes my couriers weeks to reach Rome, and I fear it would take at least 18 months to retrace my steps to Greece. I instead suggest that I may continue on my way until Egypt, and there march along the coast to Carthage where I may be of some use.

Senator Manius, you are but 15 years of age. I applaud your zeal and desire to serve the Republic, but I have learnt one or two things from the nations I have passed through, and one of them is that Greeks are stubborn fools, and will never make peace that favours Rome.

Mount Suribachi

05-29-2006, 15:12

Then we must make them accept peace. If we cannot come to peace terms with them, then surely the war must be taken to the Greek homelands? Perhaps they will be more, er, malleable, once it is their homes that are threatened...

GeneralHankerchief

05-29-2006, 16:21

I do believe that Senator Antio is overworked. I suggest that at least one, maybe two other of our senators be ambassadors to Rome. The first new diplomat could be in contact in the factions we are keeping an eye on (such as Carthage, for example) and the second could be stationed in Italia, ready for the worst.

I am but a lowly Upper House senator, but I volunteer myself for this task.

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-29-2006, 16:30

While I applaud my son's zeal for our nation, and admire the hot blood which is clearly flowing trough his veins, I feel the plan of an invasion is also beyond our present means. This calls for a fleet, which we cannot afford unfortunately. Then again, he has gotten me thinking that if we capture Syracuse and the Greeks feel that all hope of regaining their colonies is lost, then they might be more receptive to an offer of ceasefire.

So perhaps a quick surgical strike at Syracuse and the eradication of all Greek forces in Italy and Sicily might be the best solution. With the Greeks out of our hair we face only one potential enemy in the south of Italy, namely Carthage.

If we try this, we must march in such force that Carthage won't dare to waylay our armies. I recommend sending in the consular army, while the third legion guards the route into Italy south of Rhegium. We will need a fourth legion to watch our northern borders while we do this. I further recommend we enslave the population of Syracuse and sell all the military and greek auxilia buildings. If we have to make a hasty retreat later due to unforseen circumstances, we will still have profitted from this raid.

This is just an idea, there are certainly risks associated with this plan. What do you think, my fellow senators ?

econ21

05-29-2006, 19:31

[SENATE SPEAKER]: It is now the Summer of 276. By Jove, doesn't time fly? First Consul Quintus has posted a commentary on the past two years in his reports to Senate. He has only two more seasons in office, but currently awaits news from Legate Tiberius Coruncanius of an engagement with rebels outside Ancona.

Senators, in view of the passage of time, we may soon expect to have to elect a new First Consul and to decide on the future direction of our great republic if First Consul Quintus is successful in his aim of securing Sicily. Provided we hear soon from Legate Coruncanius, I expect to open a full end-term of Senate in the next day or two. After that announcement, there will be two days for debate, the proposing of motions and the nomination of candidates for first Consul, followed by one day for voting.

But I encourage you now to nominate yourselves as candidates for the position of First Consul and to begin debate on what should be the aims of our republic over the next five years.

econ21

05-29-2006, 23:30

[SENATE SPEAKER]: The reign of Quintus as First Consul has ended.

Senators wishing to stand for election as First Consul should do so by presenting manifestoes here.

Senators wishing to propose motions should do so now. All motions must be seconded to be voted on, although this will doubtless not be a problem for influential Senators.

The deadline for nominations and motions is Thursday 6pm UK time, when voting will open.

Voting will close on Friday 6pm UK time.

Glaucus

05-30-2006, 00:22

Estemmed Senators, I am sorry I was not present for recent votes, though the Republic seems even in better shape now then when I left. I have 2 motions I would like to put up for the Senate's discussion:

Motion 1: That this house focuses on naval buildings in Tarentum and Syracuse

Motion 2: That this house raises a new legion to go north and begin attacking Gaul at Jenuensis OR Bononia.

These will provide funding and facilities for a navy and will give us a greater buffer zone to the north of Roma.

econ21

05-30-2006, 00:47

[QUINTUS]: Welcome, Senator Publius Panga - it is good to see you on the Senate floor after your sterling service as governor of Roma.

I wonder if I could request that you amend motion #1 slightly so as to exclude Roma? Documents posted in the Senate library by our surveyors indicate that Roma is unsuitable as a first class military harbour. Personally, I would much rather see the great city work towards a forge, so that our troops may have the best armour and equipment. Few other cities will ever grow large enough to support such industry. After that, I believe the size of Roma will make it an excellent centre for commerce. By contrast, Tarentum and Syracuse have the potential to produce the finest warships. And indeed, the Greeks have left us much of the necessary infrastructure at Syracuse.

I am in complete agreement with the rest of your motions.

Glaucus

05-30-2006, 01:45

Of course ex-Consul Quintus, I have ammended it accordingly. Roma is needed for other buildings for now.

shifty157

05-30-2006, 02:56

Ha. You Senators talking on and on about this and that. Arguing about this and that. Who to be afraid of next.

If I am ever in doubt as to the state of the empire I merely have to take walk to my food pantry to find that the Empire is doing very well for itself. And so am I. Indeed I have food brought to my table from every corner of the world. While Im sampling the finest wine from my personal vineyards you senators sit about bickering and arguing and passing your silly motions. I chuckle at you all.

Ignoramus

05-30-2006, 03:40

These are my motions, noble senators.

MOTION #3: This house proposes that the new consul makes peace with Carthage, with the option of taking Melite before they do so.
MOTION #4: This house proposes that no offensives or conquests be made in the next 5 years, the only exception being if we are attacked.
MOTION #5: This house proposes that the new consul focus on the economy and prosperity, rather than army.
MOTION #6: This house proposes that Senator Quintus be appointed governor of the province of Sicily, with his provincal capital at Messana.

TinCow

05-30-2006, 04:20

Manifesto of Augustus Verginus, Candidate for Consulship

Conscript Fathers, Rome is triumphant!

Under the military brilliance of Senator Quintus and the watchful eyes of this august body, the Republic has entered a new age of power and prosperity. Five years ago, Rome could count on only the support of two of her Italian neighbors. Now, such a short time later, five more Italian provinces have sworn alliances with our citizens. Moreover, the Greeks have been expelled from the peninsula and their cities taken. Incredible successes have even taken the entire island of Sicily under our guidance. In all, Rome now controls nearly five times the territory that it did five years ago. Glory and triumph!

Yet, despite these successes, our future remains uncertain. We have but three Legions in arms, two combined into a Consular army in Agrigento and the third guarding our northern border with Gaul. While these brave men have helped secure our new territories, they will need the strength of further comrades if they are to keep all Romans safe from enemies, north or south. In addition, our infrastructure is primitive at best. We lack roads in nearly every province, our naval buildings are minimal, and few of our new territories have even begun the work required to make them suitable for recruiting auxilia. No plans for the conversion of any of the Sicilian provinces or any of the Greek cities has yet been layed.

Despite all of this, some Senators yet push for war with Gaul. I ask you, brothers, war for what end? War with what armies? We have achieved much, yet we have much still to achieve. We must secure our new acquisitions, ensure that their men are organized so as to provide auxiliaries for our Legions, improve provincial infrastructure and economics, and raise further Legions to secure our borders and to prepare for future conquests.

Now, I know some Senators will undoubtedly say we can do both at once. Perhaps we can, but perhaps we will make ourselves vulnerable. Is five years such a long time to wait? Much can be accomplished in such a time frame. The Republic is eternal, is there really such urgency that our vengence upon the Gauls cannot wait but a few years? Certainly, I do not advocate passivism. If we are attacked, we should certainly defend ourselves vigorously, both offensively and defensively. I say too that military opporunities should not be passed up, if they become available. Peace should be sought with Greece and Carthage, but diplomacy is a fickle beast and such a ceasefire may prove elusive. In such an event, options may become available to make expeditions to the Carthaginian island cities of Melite, Caralis, and Aleria. These are mere extensions of our existing conflict with the Punic nation. Let us concentrate any further advances in their direction if peace cannot be secured. Let us strengthen the Republic, secure our hold on the seas, and build our armies. Let us prepare for the Gauls; we shall deal with them soon enough.

I swear before Jupiter that I shall endeavor to achieve all of this and more if elected Consul. A vote for Verginus is a vote for prosperity!

Ignoramus

05-30-2006, 05:27

Hear, hear, Senator Verginus speaks sensibly, we must consolidate our gains. Rome can wait five years for further conquest, but it cannot wait for loyalty in the provinces.
However, I disagree about taking Caralis and Aleria. Carthage has lost Sicily. That is enough. Besides, how would we supply these islands? Rome must stick to land warfare whereever possible, and leave the waters to Carthage.
Those rash enough to advocate war with Gaul seek neither honour or gain for the Republic. They only seek to gain glory and honour for themselves, and would sacrifice the good of the Roman Republic for their own greedy needs, rather than seek the good of Rome.

And in summing up, I present further motions.

MOTION #7: This house moves that Legio I and Legio II move to forts on the border between Gaul and Rome in Northern Italy.
MOTION #8: This house moves that Legio III moves to a fort in southern Italia.
MOTION #9: This house moves that Legio IV moves to a fort in central Sicilia.
MOTION #10: This house moves that the Senate votes on the names the legions. (I.e. Legio I Victrix or Legio III Italia.)

Avicenna

05-30-2006, 06:03

I must express my disagreement, Senator Antio. Melite, at the very least, should be secured for the Republic. It is but a few miles offshore from Syracuse, and therefore in the perfect position for the Phoenicans to build up an army and launch a counter-attack on Sicily. We should deny them any chance to go on the offense against us, and we should at the very least blockade the island, so that even if they do build an army against us, it will prove impossible to actually attack us.

However, I do agree with my colleagues in that Rome simply must consolidate her position. Why, even Senator Laevinius the warmonger has taken to sitting idly in his villa sampling wine! Surely this shows that Rome is in no danger, otherwise he would be present here proposing motions of aggression and expansion. The Gauls are a threat, but I believe that an army of the Praetorian size will be able to guard us from danger, especially under Senator Lucius Aemilius, who has proved his military expertise in a tactical game in Roma's finest academy.

And so, senators, I urge you all to vote aye for Motions I, III, IV, V and VI.

Long live the republic!

Ignoramus

05-30-2006, 06:15

Senators, I have amended Motion #3. It now reads:
MOTION #3: This house proposes that the new consul makes peace with Carthage, with the option of taking Melite before they do so.

And one so carefree and lazy as Publius Laevinus should never be consul. He loads himself with fine clothes and his tables with precious plates; a lowly senator can seldom gain admittance.

Braden

05-30-2006, 09:46

Gentlemen of the Senate, I must first apologise for my absence from our recent proceedings *cough*, my continued illness has now been diagnosed as “Irregular Connectivitus”. Unfortunately there is no permanent cure for this aliment and it is possible that I shall suffer from bouts of this illness throughout my life.

However, today I stand before you and obviously must add my consul to our most recent matters.

Consul Quintus has handed us the conquest of Sicily, it is true that it was not a course of action I held too but the die is cast and we must now look forward once again. Soon we will be voting for a new Consul. Quintus has previously given his intent not to stand for re-election and whilst we have not always seen “eye-to-eye” I am saddened by his choice for whilst the direction he took the Republic militarily was not completely to my agreement, we and I could not fault his skills in management or on the field of battle.

The Consul has advised us in his full report that the Praetorian army in Sicily is currently very under strength and I strongly believe that IF we wish to keep that which our Roman lives have paid for, we must strengthen that army as fast as is possible. The threat of invasion from Carthage is too strong to ignore and I urge use to consider that, instead of funding the raising of a forth Legion we should use a lower sum to supplement our army in Sicily. *cough*

We must address the issue of income as a priority also. Whilst my heart tells me that we should be making war on the Gauls and taking the rich regions to our North, my head tells me that we cannot hope to finance such an expedition at this time.

Currently Legate Tiberius Coruncanius and his Legio II are stationed on our Northern border and whilst I believe that the Legate’s Legion would be more than capable of taking the three settlements to the North, we cannot provide him with the raw manpower that would enable him to retain those settlements, nor do we have sufficient governors of experience to govern these unruly townships.

So, whilst I am a warrior at heart I must conclude that now we have settled the Greek issue in our lands, and provided ourselves with a buffer between us and Carthage in Sicily, our efforts in this next term must be concentrated in Trade and infostructure. The next Consul must ensure the three armies we have are strengthened and that our treasury swells.

Both these measures are to be done before we look North or even across the sea’s for further expansion. That does not preclude expansion within the next tenure for I am sure that such measures can be put in place in the early part of the next Consuls tenure of office.

I draw the Senates attention to the Island of Sardinia to the West. I understand that it has great potential for income being centrally placed. Unfortunately, I do not know if any of our neighbours lay claim to that island state.

I fear that further conflict with Carthage is unavoidable, but that we are not in a position fiscally or militarily to take pre-emptive action in this direction at this immediate point.

I believe that any of these further ventures will require us to raise a more substantial navy than we currently have and it is with these views that I will vote or offer further motions to table.

First we must raise the income of the Republic.

Then we must raise a navy capable of sustaining a campaign further from our homeland and able to protect that which we have already captured.

Only after these have been achieved can we consider further offensive action.

econ21

05-30-2006, 10:14

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Honorable Senators, the scribes have pointed out the difficulty of allowing votes on more than 15 motions. Consequently, I ask you noble Senators to try to limit the number of motions accordingly.

To this end, I have consolidated several of Senator Sextius's motions, as some did seem to have a common theme.

COMPOSITE MOTION #3:
This house proposes that:
(a) the new consul makes peace with Carthage, with the option of taking Melite before they do so.
(b) no offensives or conquests be made in the next 5 years, the only exception being if we are attacked.
(c)This house proposes that the new consul focus on the economy and prosperity, rather than army.

COMPOSITE MOTION #5:
This house proposes that:
(a) Legio I move to a fort on the border between Gaul and Rome in Northern Italy, as Legio II currently is stationed.
(b) the Consular army at Agrigento be divided, half moving to a fort in southern Italia and half to a fort in central Sicilia.
(c) the Senate votes on the names the legions. (I.e. Legio I Victrix or Legio III Italia.)

I am also taking the liberty of ammending motion #4, as Syracuse - as a large city - is the capital of Sicily. Messana, unfortunately, is merely a large town and underdeveloped by contrast.

REVISED MOTION #4: This house proposes that Senator Quintus be appointed governor of the province of Sicily, with his provincal capital at Syracuse.

Further, on a point of information, Senators are reminded that we have three enumerated military formations (OOC: stacks with formation ancillaries):
(1) the First Consular Army at Agrigento - this has the strength of two legions and two alae
(2) Legio I - this has the strength of one legion and one alae, although it is currently divided between Paestum and Rhegium.
(3) Legion II - this has the strength of one legion and one alae, and is stationed in a fort north of Arretium on the border with Gaul
Full details of how the enumeration of these military formations occurs is set out in the notes by Marcus Camillus in the Senate library. So essentially, we have four field legions although two are consolidated into a Consular army.

econ21

05-30-2006, 10:52

[QUINTUS]: Senators! Is there no man among you who will lead the Republic to further glories? By the gods, all this talk of consolidation makes me regret ever promising not to seek re-election!

Let me speak frankly with you, brothers. Unless you have attempted to lead this great Republic, it is hard to understand the economic constraints upon her. Never, in the many games and exercises I played in my youth in the Academy, have I experienced one where the economic constraint is so tight.

I also remind you, gentlemen, that this long campaign we have set ourselves will be very hard. We afford our citizens more luxuries than our cruel neighbours provide their own. Consequently, every rival faction earns a bonus of 10000 gold each season above what we can obtain.

Those are the stubborn facts, on which I hope we can agree.

So, I ask this - what do they imply?

Some of you infer that the tightness of our economy implies that we should cease conquest for fives years and consolidate. I believe this is misguided. Given the extra income our rivals receive, I suspect a period of peace will allow them to pull ahead and we will fall behind. And in absolute terms - after five years of stagnation, what will have changed? Very little, I suspect. We will still lack a navy capable of defleating the massive armada that Carthage recently threatened Sicily with. The time taken to get the necessary naval infrastructure is simply too long. We can already recruit the best troops possible. And the returns to investing in markets, roads or ports appear to me rather slim compared to the stiff initial outlays required.

By contrast, my inference from the above facts is that economic constraints necessitate unrelentless expansion. Conquest will provide the resources that we can use to plough back into our economy. Noble Senators, we already have the means to expand continuously by land. We already have four legions - enough to free a Consular army for Gaul, while leaving legion-sized garrisons in Sicily and central Italy. I do not believe we would need to raise further substantial field formations to secure Cisalpine Gaul, only a few garrison troops. Consequently, I believe capturing Gaulish settlements will increase the net resources available for our navy and our economy, not reduce it. We can take Cisalpine Gaul and then decide what direction next to take - west, into Transalpine Gaul, or east into Illyria.

I call upon you Senators who have not yet spoken - is there no man among you who will fight for the republic you love?

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-30-2006, 10:56

As consul Quintus has managed to conquer a vast swath of territory, brought large amounts riches and slaves to our cities, and also has managed to defeat a large number of enemy troops versus minor losses of our own, he should be granted a Triumph.
I would ask consul Quintus to deliver proof to this house that he has satisfactied the necessary requirements. Our enemies have not been completely defeated, but as they are driven from our lands our troops can go home safely. I am not sure how many enemies have been slain and if this reaches the required number of 5.000 slain, but seeing our minor losses I am willing to be lenient on this requirement.

I propose motion #6 :
Consul Quintus should be granted leave by the senate to celebrate a Triumph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_triumph).

Death the destroyer of worlds

05-30-2006, 11:19

Edit : Remove double post.

Ignoramus

05-30-2006, 11:31

I second that.

Braden: My inbox is empty now.

shifty157

05-30-2006, 11:43

Given the situation I must say that I agree fully with Quintus.

There is much to be said of the gold that fills our treasuries from sacking towns and then taxing the inhabitants.

To this end I would even support the landing of an army on Greek soil. The small distance by sea would not require a large fleet. Indeed a small fleet could make several trips in a season and still return safely to harbor. It is far from the perilous voyage that sailing to Carthage would require. It would also relieve the pressure for large garrisons in Italy which we currently face.

Braden

05-30-2006, 11:49

Quintus, I take heed of your greater knowledge of our current financial state and of the mechanics of finance.

Do you not find it slightly amusing that not so long ago you were telling me that I was perhaps too eager for conquest and now it seems our roles are reversed?

However, since your advice clearly shows that I am lacking in understanding of how our economy is best served I am willing to concede the issue here. I have, as you know, long been in favour of expansion Northwards and to pursue the Gauls once our immediate threats have been negated.

It appears that time is upon us now. In your opinion, what would be required of Rome to pursue and finish such a campaign? I would certainly be in favour of the conquest of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul and the Four settlements therein.

If the Senate can be assured that such an exploit would not:

1) Be such an undue drain on the Republics funds as to preclude the commencement of building towards a greater navy.
2) Cause us to become over extended militarily.

I am sure that such assurances from yourself can go along way to negating some of the fears expressed in the Senate so far this session.

By way of more general questions, I ask if we have sufficient number of members in the Lower House to take up governorships of these new conquests, I understand that the culture shock to the general populas of these settlements is likely to be great and as such we will have to either appoint very studious governors OR steel ourselves to decimate the poor locals of these towns.

The 2nd option is not one I would enjoy, nor would I vote for it. I have seen babes put to death by the sword…..it is not something I will have party too again in my lifetime.

On a lighter note, the current motions. Whilst it is commendable to consolidate the current list of motions I now find it hard to vote for some of those placed by Senator Sextius. Whilst I believe we should attempt to gain peace with Carthage at this time I now do not agree we should hamstring the next Consul with a pledge of lasting peace for 5 years. I do not believe we should, or are in a position to openly strike at Carthage again directly, I believe Quintus would agree with that – we do not have the navy that it would require – but that does not mean we should not attempt to absorb further territory by land or within the Sea.

If the motion remains as it is I will have to vote negative for motion 3.

Motion 5. Whilst sections (b) and (c) are agreeable to me, I see little use for section (a). If we pledge to march against Gaul the region in question will no longer be a border state and I doubt there will be a need for a stationed garrison in that region.

However, I trust we will enable the new Consul to fight as he sees fit and that he will not uphold that section of the motion.

As for Motion 4, I have not qualms about rewarding Quintus in this way.

We certainly need to expand but believe, before we strike East against the Greeks again we must expand and remove the Gauls from our door. Then I would support a landing against the Greeks, if not also on Sardinia.

Ignoramus

05-30-2006, 12:06

Noble senators, I wish to ammend some of my motions.

MOTION #3:
This house proposes that:
(a) the new consul makes peace with Carthage, with the option of taking Melite before they do so.
(b) an offensive be amde against the Gauls of Cisalpine Gaul.
(c) that the new consul focus on the economy and prosperity, rather than army.
(d) that econmonic growth is to take a higher priority than expanison.

MOTION #5:
This house proposes that:
(a) Legio I move to a fort in the mountain pass leading to Transalpine Gaul, and Legio II move to a fort near Aquilea on the Roman side of the border.
(b) the Consular army at Agrigento be divided, half moving to a fort in southern Italia and half to a fort in central Sicilia.
(c) the Senate votes on the names the legions. (I.e. Legio I Victrix or Legio III Italia.)

Could the Senate Speaker please make the necessary alterations?

Braden

05-30-2006, 12:21

I add my name to Second those Motions as now tabled by Senator Sextius.

TinCow

05-30-2006, 12:27

Senators, the words of Senator Quintus are wise and the experience from which he speaks adds great weight to his words. However, I am still wary of advancing before we are able and beyond our means. I am not a pacifist by any means, but I fear moving too far, too fast with too many provinces to defend against too many stinking Gauls. If, in the course of my Consulate, I felt that the Republic was strong enough to advance into Cisalpine Gaul, with the approval of the Senate, and without risking disaster, I would do so. The areas below the Alps certainly must be secured from that vile plague for Rome to be truly safe, I simply do not believe in a mandated requirement to take said provinces. Such a requirement cannot properly anticipate the readiness of the Republic during the course of the next consulate. What if the Punic armies return to Sicily? What if the Greeks land forces in the South?

I say we risk disaster if we mandate expansion at this point. Let us leave it to the next Consul to determine when war with Gaul should begin.

econ21

05-30-2006, 13:17

[QUINTUS]: Senator Augustus Verginius, your flexibility and caution does you credit. I suggest that you propose a motion, similar to that which I used to authorise the invasion of Sicily. That is to say, a motion authorising, but not mandating, you to declare war on Gaul if you judge the time right. Such a motion would avoid you having to return to the Senate to authorise a declaration of war and so speed up our campaign. I believe those who support advancing on Gaul should support such a motion, although they may also vote for other stronger motions.

On a personal note, Senators, I must humbly beg you not to vote for motion 4. Indeed, I plead with my good friend Senator Antio Sextus to withdraw the motion. Senator Braden speaks of it as a reward, but in fact I regard it as a punishment. From Senator Publius Laevinius's appearance in this house, you have seen what happens to a fighter when you assign him to a life of peace. It breaks his spirit and leaves only bitterness. If I am assigned to govern a settlement, I will have to resign my post as Second Consul. This means that - should Carthage land in Sicily - my ability to command a defence will be reduced by as much as three points out of seven. Furthermore, as I am already an ex-Consul, there will be no benefit from relinquishing my position as Second Consul. I urge you instead to leave the next First Consul free to deploy me as he wishes, hopefully as an army commander and still with the rank of Second Consul.

Indeed, this speaks to a wider issue raised by Senator Braden: whether we have enough governors for occupied settlements. I believe the world is such that there will never be enough fine generals to govern every settlement. Moreover, members of the Lower House will doubtless much prefer to be in the field than governing towns. Remember - to be a Legate requires 10 years in the field, not in a settlement. I am proud that during my Consulship, I managed to secure Tiberius Coruncanius and Publius Laevinus the posts of legate. I believe Luciud Amelius will also be eligible for such a promotion soon. In due course, they may all become Praetors and then later replace me as Second Consul. However, I confess that towards the end of my reign, the natural tendency to let generals end the season in a settlement may have overcome me. My successor would be better advised to always keep our Lower House members in the field or in forts, not languishing in settlements. This implies that settlement loyalty must be secured by larger garrisons, lower taxes or, in time, the good work of members of the Upper House who will take on civic duties.