Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations II

[Glaucus]

...find a more pliable young Senator and send them to hunt down the brigands in reward for their acquiescence to your vendetta...

*Publius Pansa rises and leaves the House of the Senate, telling his attendant to make ready his bath*

[x-dANGEr]

Senators, I think we should send spies in south Greece, so we know when is the right moment to strike, and strike hard. I hope you'd give me a suitable army to go seize one of their cities, for you all know me of my pure roman roots, and good commanding skills, and to be fair, I want to avenge that woman.

[Braden]

(OOC: Saucer of milk please! Senate floor, table two.)

Consul,

I understand your defence at what you see is a personal attack, however, what the Senate questions are not merely actions that you should have presented the Senate with before acting upon them but also actions and further proposals that run counter to what you pledged before election.

My master had no illusions about what was possible with our fighting men when you proposed this “raid” on Gaul. It is precisely that reason that moved him to vote against it. He was confident that you would demolish the Gauls, although the speed is astounding obviously, the result was never in doubt in his mind. He was also aware of the problems that sudden vacuum would make.

I find it hard to accept your own lack of confidence after the “track record” of our legions against the Gauls, or actually anyone who has opposed them so far. When or legions were killing at least 12 Gauls for each one of their own, how could you doubt them?

However, the main points that my master will contest with you at this time revolve around your proposal to occupy settlements which belonged to the Gauls that you have sacked already AND, perhaps more importantly, your proposal to start offensive actions against the Iberians!

What you did by gifting defeated regions to the Germainians was wrong, you will potentially be impeached for it, but it is done and is the past now. Dwelling on this for anything other than the vote for or against the impeachment is folly.

What should concern the Senate now are your future actions. I see that you have started to back track with regards to the Iberians, I am gladdened of this but for clarification I ask you to state openly that you will NOT start war upon the Iberians and ONLY defend our borders?

Also, you state we should “finish” the destruction of Gaul? Have you not done this already?? You’re original mandate remains – the sacking of Gaul without retaining control of any of her original settlements…….this you have pledged and the Senate agreed upon.

My master will hold you to this pledge. This does not validate the occupation of any of these lands though.

IF this needs further clarification I can submit a motion but I believe it does NOT. It is simple, you must complete the Raid you promised to undertake and then WITHDRAW to behind the ford at Massilia, as you promised to do. Leave those sorry settlements to whatever fate and the Gods dictate.

Then you may do what the majority of Senators voted for you do – build our economy and infrastructure. Where our next conflict in the North comes from will be seen in the future, without a robust economy we will not be able to face the future threats, wherever they come from though.

Greece or Carthage? My master would favour Carthage but a divide of water seems to lead to apathy in the Senate so perhaps the Greeks will be our next main concern….at this time it matters not! What does matter is that you, Consul, uphold what you pledged and do not continue to exceed your powers or mandate.

[SwordsMaster]

IF this needs further clarification I can submit a motion but I believe it does NOT. It is simple, you must complete the Raid you promised to undertake and then WITHDRAW to behind the ford at Massilia, as you promised to do. Leave those sorry settlements to whatever fate and the Gods dictate.

Then you may do what the majority of Senators voted for you do – build our economy and infrastructure. Where our next conflict in the North comes from will be seen in the future, without a robust economy we will not be able to face the future threats, wherever they come from though.

I wholeheartedly agree with senator Curtius on this matter. If not for the promise to impulse the development of our homeland, there would have been one less vote for you, Consul Verginius. I insist you upkeep your electoral promises.

[Mount Suribachi]

Conscript Fathers, it is with a torn heart that I stand before you. To see my honoured father Tiberius, and my Consul & General Augustus at each others throats saddens me greatly. There are several key issues that stand before us, that I shall come to one by one

Firstly, the issue of handing over Gaulish provinces to Germania. I feel that the anger many Senators feel over what they perceive as an unconstitutional act is greatly enhanced by the fact that we received so little in return. I truly believe that for Consul Augustus Verginius to have stopped his raid - whilst deep inside Gaul, to propose motions for the Senates approval would have been impracticable to the point of being unachievable. The Senate cannot surely expect its elected Consul to ratify every single diplomatic effort he makes. Furthermore, this house fails to take into account the intractability of our neighbours, near and far! How many diplomatic motions has this house approved? And how many our esteemed Consuls succeeded in? The rulers all around our great Republic are a stiff-necked lot who wouldn't know a good deal if it was tattooed on their backsides! We would be forced into starting countless Senate sessions, endlessly debating diplomatic motions, which if they passed, would be rejected by the objects of our diplomacy anyway.

Oh how Consul Augustus tried to reach a deal with other nations. I was there at the negotiations Conscript Fathers, I saw first hand how the Barbarian style of negotiation is all take-take-take and no give, not even a little. Against such foolishness there is little that can be done alas. I shall not be voting to reproach, let alone impeach our noble Consul, he did what he thought was best for Rome, and within boundaries of his Imperium.

Secondly, Iberia. And here I diverge from the point of View of Augustus. Oh, the debates we have had in the command tent on this issue! I believe former Consul Quintus has put forward my own position most eloquently. We conquered Massila, specifically to give us an easily defensible frontier. With just one fort, Cisalpine Gaul is protected from attacks. Yet Consul Augustus (and others) advocate advancing into Southern Gaul, as we can protect our position with just THREE forts!

Conscript Fathers, were my teachers in the Academy failing me, or am I correct in believing that the position that only needs ONE fort is more defensible than that which needs three? Furthermore, those 3 forts would be sandwiched between Germania and Iberia, and I doubt that either of those 2 would be able to resist attacking us at some point. Massila has repeatedly shown its value as a defensive position. Let the Iberians take the easy route to the North if they desire further expansion.

If the Iberians are foolish enough to attack us at Massila, they will most surely lose, and lose badly. And then they will suffer, as have all who are foolish enough to challenge us. But until they point, let them be, we have bigger fish to fry.

Finally Greece. I commend motion 6.6 as put forward by Vibius Pleminius although he is perhaps being a little bit over-confident in putting himself, merely a tribune like myself, forward to lead such an expedition which deserves a Legate to lead it. Too long have those foolish Greeks hidden across the water, dodging the reckoning for their aggression against us. And if it serves to protect Ilyria, then so much the better. I shall go away and study the maps, but I would suggest a walled, coastal city. Easily defendable, and adds to our trade income, whilst taking away from theirs.

Finally I would like to second motion 6.13

[econ21]

[QUINTUS]: I would also like to second motion #6.13. I emphasise that the fleet must be for fighting at sea as well as transportation. Another 10 light ships, although economical as transports, would not serve us well. We currently lack a single corvus quinquireme. A small fleet of even five of these vessels would greatly increase our naval strength.

Senators, we cannot continue to cower in fear as Greek and Carthaginian fleets sail past. We cannot continue to have to sneak undetected across straits of water if we wish to send our armies to distant lands. We must achieve naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and now, when our position on land appears unassailable, would seem to be the appropriate time to begin our ascent.

[Glaucus]

In light of recent discussion, I withdraw my support for motions 6.3 and 6.4. You have made it clear in my mind as to what is the best course for the Republic. That said, I do think the Iberians will attack us soon, and when the time comes we should be ready to strike. Thus, I remain very against sending armies accross the sea to Greece to start new wars!

[Braden]

Princeps Quintus, Members of the Senate,

My proposal for a fleet is for a utilitarian fleet, a mixture of transports and warships. My Masters concern now is for the Republic to concentrate on the defence of our shipping lanes and ports whilst the Consul concentrates on building our economy.

Ports and shipping are the life-blood of our finances and must be defended. We can no longer tolerate the Carthage and Greek fleets to have complete freedom in the seas.

Does the Motion require rewording? I had hoped that the stipulation in the Motion “fleet for transport and defence” was explicit enough, whatever the mix it MUST be of sufficient size to be able to transport a sufficient army of Consular size AND maintain security.

Perhaps this is s dream for the future, but the seeds must be sown now.

[Braden]

Members of the Senate, I must also explain the stance my master will take in this voting session.

He will not support any motions that will support or run the risk of direct conflict at this time. He believes that after the success of the raids in Gaul, the 2nd half of this Consularship should be to build up in preparation for trials ahead.

It is possible, very possible, that the Greeks will strike in the next Consuls tenure. It is also nearly as possible that we will exchange javelins with the Iberians, or the warriors of Carthage. What he does not think is that these will occur in the next 2 years, hence the current Consul has time to re-build and strengthen the Republic.

Currently if a war breaks out we will suffer greatly.

If Carthage attacks they will blockade our ports and we will not be able to stop them, they will strike at Lilybaeum perhaps and we will not be able to ferry support to our citizens there.

If Iberia strikes, it will be a hell-storm of countless bodies. We will hold them but at what cost in manpower? Could we rebuild our Legion on the frontier in time?

If the Greeks come, they will also blockade our ports, perhaps even land on the East coast of Italia! We cannot stop this now……we could only react after they have landed and burnt our fields.

So, we must build now…..In Peace, Prepare for War….is it not said? We must withdraw from Gaul, recruit to replace the dead (granted, not that many) and more importantly, we must not miss the chance to use the funds given us by the Consul for the betterment of the Republic. Such coin must not be lost on more wars.

Support a withdrawal from Gaul
Support the building of a fleet
Urge the Consul to build infrastructure.

Support and vote YES on Motions:

#6.5, #6.7, #6.8, #6.11 and #6.13

[x-dANGEr]

If the Greeks come, they will also blockade our ports, perhaps even land on the East coast of Italia! We cannot stop this now……we could only react after they have landed and burnt our fields.

So, we must build now…..In Peace, Prepare for War….is it not said? We must withdraw from Gaul, recruit to replace the dead (granted, not that many) and more importantly, we must not miss the chance to use the funds given us by the Consul for the betterment of the Republic. Such coin must not be lost on more wars.

Support a withdrawal from Gaul
Support the building of a fleet
Urge the Consul to build infrastructure.

Support and vote YES on Motions:

#6.5, #6.7, #6.8, #6.11 and #6.13

But then, I'd rather take the battle to them than receive it in my lands.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Thus, I remain very against sending armies accross the sea to Greece to start new wars!

Senator Publius Pansa,
The war with the Greeks has never ended. Unless you mean the possible extension of this conflict when we get embroiled in war with the Greek allies, the Macedonians.

Senators,
We have suffered only minor losses and the only nation that really threatens our security now are the Greek Cities. Our Praetorian fleet can transport an entire Consular army in a single season if we invade Greece from Tarentum due to the short distance. We have a unique oppertunity to strike hard at our strongest enemy while our other enemies are occupied with other matters. Let us not waste it !
Illyria is putting up a magnificent fight, but eventually she will collapse and then we will be fighting at Patavium. Let us not wait for that, but strike now and fight the war in their homeland !
Support all Motions that call for offensive action against the vile Greeks !

[SwordsMaster]

In sight of what has been said, I would like to propose a new motion:

Motion 6.14: By the end of the consul's term, the total size of our fleet should be at least that of the Greek and Carthaginian (our two closest enemies) combined. No less than a third of it should be made of heavy vessels (Corvus Quinquirremes), and information should be gathered immediately about the size o the fleets of our rivals.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Unlike Carthage, there is a land connection between us and the Greeks which is currently held by Illyria. Theoretically, the Greeks could just plow through and show up on Patavium's doorstep one day. That makes them all the more dangerous.

Not to mention there is always the question of money. Surely the controlling of both sides of the Adriatic Sea, as well as possibly one side of the Aegean Sea (we have good relations with those on the other side, do we not?) would definitely turn us into a force to be reckoned with in terms of the size of our coffers.

[Silver Rusher]

I would like to take a moment to urge the Senate not to vote in favor of Motion 6.10. As was stated in the battle report, it was Legio I which was truly heroic in that action, not I. Furthermore it was but a single victory in a long and ongoing conflict. It was not a decisive battle against the Gauls nor was it strategically significant in the grand course of the war. I fully believe that renaming an entire settlement after me is excessive and insulting to the men who truly won the battle.

I personally do not believe such an honor is necessary nor do I think it is proper given the circumstances. If the Senate feels that honors must be accorded for this action, then I would ask that they be given to the Legion itself, not to me. Give them a bonus pension and make the Italian auxilia who fought there that day Roman citizens.

Legio I was brave yes, but their bravery was inspired by you! Please, Senator, do not beat yourself up over the rash charge that you led against Lucco. If it had not been for this, the enemy would not have routed and the Legion would have been slaughtered. It was your decisive action that won the battle.

I also disagree on the idea that it was strategically insignificant. Lucco was a great and powerful general. If a less experienced general had taken over that battle, not only would the Legion have been slaughtered but Lucco's army would grow even more confident (and therefore more formidable) and we would be HUGELY crippled for the course of the war. His army was one of the most powerful that the Gauls had, and their ambush made this even more true.

I fully believe that renaming an entire settlement after me is excessive and insulting to the men who truly won the battle.

This is a joke, surely! Your men would have been proud to see their good general's name on the city. They would be able to tell their grandchildren: "I was there, when Augustus Verginius led us to victory against the army of Gaul. I was there when, in spite of a fearsome Gallic ambush, which very nearly spelt the death of our forces, but Augustus managed to turn the tide of the battle."

Please, Senator, do not deny that you won a great victory on that day. However, if you do not wish to have a settlement named after you, that is only fair.

Unless Augustus Verginius changes his mind, I will withdraw motion 6.10

EDIT: OOC: Well, it seems I am too late. Scrap that last bit.

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: I ask your forgiveness, Senators, but Mrs Speaker, I mean unforeseen circumstances, force me to open polling an hour early.

Apologies in particular to Senator Swordsmaster, but I believe much of the gist of his motion 6.14 can be taken to be included in the motion 6.13.

No more motions can now be tabled or seconded. Results will be announced in 24 hours.

Now, I must depart in haste... Farewell for now.

[SwordsMaster]

[SENATE SPEAKER]:
Apologies in particular to Senator Swordsmaster, but I believe much of the gist of his motion 6.14 can be taken to be included in the motion 6.13.

I believe this is not the case, honorable speaker, as where motion 13 requests a Consular fleet, i.e. a fleet capable of transporting a Consular army, motion 14 sets much more specific goals for our Consul

[Mount Suribachi]

Senator Rutilius, unfortunately I believe your policy of Naval parity to be unrealistic at this moment in time. Warships such as Corvus Quinquereemes are expensive to build & maintain. We must remember that due to their tax practices they receive 10,000 denarii a season extra income, that we do not. In an arms race of quantity, we will always lose. In an arms race of quality, on sea as on land, we should aim to be victorious.

I would always prefer a smaller, but well armed and highly trained navy wielded with strategic efficiency to a larger navy used clumsily, as a barbarian would wield a club.

[TinCow]

This senate is outraged by the prospect of war with Iberia, yet many of you vote for war with Macedon and propose an expedition to Greece that will surely result in war with Macedon as well. I do not know whether this is hypocrisy, insanity or ignorance. Perhaps next session I should propose war with Bactria if I believe Rome should attack Iberia.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Illyria is the enemy of our enemy, and hence our friend.
Macedon is the friend of Greece, and hence our potential enemy. The fact that Macedon and Greece have banded together to fight Illyria makes it vital for us to intervene and declare war on Macedon. If Illyria falls, we will have the Greeks, and possible the Macedonians, on our doorstep in Cispine Gaul.
The Iberians are a potential enemy as they are allied to Gaul, but they are also our friend as they are the enemy of our enemy, the Republic of Carthage.

Why lose a friend, Iberia, when we can save a friend, Illyria ?

Anyhow, the voting is still in progress and then there is the question of influence. Patience is my counsel.

[TinCow]

The sheer madness of this body makes me glad I shall be retiring in less than 3 years. One Senator even voted in favor of Motion 6.1 and the motion voiding it!

I am ordered to cease warfare against the Gauls, when two Legions and the Consular I Army are ready to strike, yet I am ordered to attack the Greeks across the sea when we have no Legions to spare within two years march of the area.

Under Motion 5.4 I am ordered to keep a Legion within 1 day's march of all unwalled cities. As such I cannot move Legio IV in southern Italy or Legio V in Sicily. In addition it would be foolish to remove all forces from the Massilia crossing, so at least either Legio I or Legio III must remain there. This leaves the other Legion available, but two years march from a port from which they can take transport to Greece, and Consular I Army, which is even farther away.

So, this can be solved by raising another Legion to send to Greece. Yet I am also ordered by Motion 6.5 to begin auxilia integration in every single province and by Motion 5.4 to construct roads and armories in provinces, a feat that I doubt could be achieved even with all of our current income diverted to the task, let alone after the expense of raising and maintaining another Legion and of expanding the fleet.

Fortunately, many in this Senate are also fools and do not know how to create effective legislation. I note with pleasure that Motion 6.13 merely authorises me to complete a Consular sized fleet. Why, thank you for the authorization. I assure you I shall not feel the need to exercise the power. I also note the curious wording of Motion 6.8 and Motion 6.6. Motion 6.8 clearly states that all Roman troops must return to the Republic. Clearly no Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites, Velites, or Fundatores may leave the Republic for the remainder of my Consulship. Therefore the Greek army must be composed exclusively of Italian auxilia, since that is all that remains to us at the moment. Motion 6.6 states that a small army must establish a base in Greece. Nothing in the motion says that the base must be held after it is established, nor does it indicate how large the army must be, other than 'small.' I believe some of the more irksome Senators here today may soon find themselves in command of two cohorts of Italian spearmen assaulting a walled Greek city and with no possibility of reinforcements to help defend their new base.

Did you think you were dealing with a fool? Next time I suggest you put more thought into your legislative vomitus.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Senators, and especially our acting consul Verginius,

Decius Curtius (Braden)'s representative must have gotten confused during the heated debates and voted incorrectly. I'm sure his master will punish him accordingly.

As one of your 'persecutors' let me be the first to congratulate you on the failure of Motion 6.9 (This house censors the First Consul), which as a senator I felt had to be proposed, but as a friend am glad to see failed miserably.
I greatly regret the failure of Motion 6.7 (We will ally ourselves with the Illyrians), especially seeing as Motion 6.6 (A small army along with a spy is to be sent to a 'backroom' Greek city) did pass. I now greatly regret voting for Motion 6.6, especially as it seems my vote was decisive, and I would never have done it had I suspected Motion 6.7 would fail. But it is too late now and the will of the senate must be done.

I think your interpretation might be slightly too literal, altough I can understand your caution after your harsh treatement at the hands of the senate and myself in particular.
I do not think the senate would take kindly to you interpreting ´Roman troops´ as excluding our auxilia forces. You would make a laughing stock of yourself if you actually did send out an army composed entirely of auxiliaries without a core of Prinicipes, Hastatii, Velites and Triarii. Your deft twisting of words does not disguise the fact that no True Roman would consider an army to lack this core to be an army, merely a collection of auxilia troops. As Motion 6.8 says nothing about Motion 6.6 I expect a small army to be a Roman Legion at the very least. I strongly recommend to send a Consular Army for such a hazardous attack.
I find your notion of ´two cohorts of Italian spearmen assaulting a walled Greek city´ entertaining, but I´m assuming you will use your military knowledge and send out nothing smaller than a legion at the very least.

I am glad that Motion 6.15 passed as we can surely use the extra day of debate it seems.

Let me finish by expressing the fullest confidence that acting consul Verginius can manouver between these ill-worded directives and find a path that will lead to the betterment of our great Republic.


Hail Roma !

[Mount Suribachi]

*purses lips*


*looks at Consul Verginius, looks at the rest of the Senate*


*says nothing*

[flyd]

Looks like that pesky Senate is getting in Verginius' way once again.

[Braden]

Consul, Senators,

Firstly I must apologise. It appears I interpreted more into motions #6.1 and #6.8 than was intended by their proposers.

It was my assumption that both could run together but in priority….Motion #6.1 was to FINALISE the destruction of Gaul with all haste with then Motion #6.8 insisting that the troops return to Republican soil AFTER they have completed the task which was set them with the Consuls election to office.

id est, the completed raid of Gaul. Please note I voted against those motions insisting we retained control of any Gallic regions.

As to Motion #6.6 – it is clear that the Senate have not see recent maps of the Consuls current troops disposition and I trust that the Senate will take the Consuls assurance that he will start to move troops into a position READY to undertake Motion #6.6 as it is physically impossible for him to actually complete such a task.

Last I looked our troops were not mounted on Pegasus.

Please Consul, understand that if a task is beyond you, the Senate will not hold it against you.

I ask the Senate Speaker to re-instate Motion #6.1 and allow the Consul to complete the task that he Senate voted him in for BEFORE complying with Motion #6.8.

Destroy Gaul, then return home and build. Consolidate your troops and prepare for acting upon Motion #6.6.

It will be the next Consuls task to complete Motion #6.6 it is clear.

I would imagine that my Master will be honoured to undertake scouting for the mission in Motion #6.6, and likewise will not be in a position to undertake such a task until the next Consulship.

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: I am afraid I have no power to reinstate motions. To avoid contradictory motions, we introduced the requirement that the later motion should supercede the earlier one if it explicitly invalidates it. I believe the corollary of this should be that if a later motion does not explicitly invalidate an earlier one, the earlier motion (not the later one) takes precedence. I suggest we observe this corollary henceforth so that the onus is on those currently legislating to ensure consistency with what has gone before.

The interpretation and execution of motions is at the discretion of the First Consul, although the Senate will no doubt take a view on whether the interpretations are reasonable and may take action accordingly in the next session. Some of the interpretations proposed by the current First Consul - on the words "Roman" and "authorises" in particular - do seem questionable and clearly contrary to the will of the Senate.

[Braden]

Then perhaps the Senate would be best served to clarify its general intent for the 2nd half of the Consuls tenure?

From the motions that have been carried I would gauge that the Senate wishes the Consul to:
1) Fully withdraw, with no delay, from Gaul
2) Prepare for a pre-emptive strike against the Greeks (accepting that it is impossible to actually undertake such a task this Consulship)
3) Complete construction of a Fleet
4) Continue integration of all the provinces towards Auxilia training

I hope that the Consul judges the Senates intent in a very similar way. I am but a lowly scribe but often tasked to “interpret” my masters wishes, so perhaps best suited to thus interpret the Senates overall wishes at this time.

Whilst I voted for an extension to the debate period, I am now worried that perhaps MORE debate can lead only to more confusion within the Senate.

[TinCow]

I spoke out of frustration with this body and results that I do not agree with. However, I will do my duty as a Roman. None will ever be able to say that I shirked my responsibilities. Nor would I ever send a single Roman or Italian to certain death, not even my worst enemy. One drop of Roman blood is worth a sea from any other people and petty political disputes will never change that. If I must send an expedition to Greece, then I will send one in force with capable leadership.

However, this does not mean the situation is even remotely safe. Legios I, II and III simply cannot be moved south without exposing all of Italy to the northern barbarians. Similarly, Legio V cannot leave Sicily while the Punic fleet provides a constant threat of invasion. As such, only Legio IV Gallica in Southern Italy is available for this task. Legio IV makes the most sense as the assault force, since they are both the closest and responsible for the defense of Italy against the Greeks. With a Greek city taken, the threat to Italy will certainly be diverted to that spot, thus leaving Legio IV without a need to be at its station.

Yet, Legio IV Gallica will be alone, isolated across the sea, and without possibility of reinforcement for a significant time. It is simply impossible for the Republic to raise yet another Legion and still maintain the building programs that the Senate desires to be completed. A new Legion cannot be raised to aid Legio IV Gallica nor can new units be created to reinforce them. The only other available force in the Republic is Consular I Army which, as you know, is currently in Gaul.

With all of this in mind, I have had a private meeting with Senator Quintus. Despite our differences, I believe that if this expedition is to have any hope of success, it must be lead by our greatest General. I think few would dispute my reasoning that this is Quintus. He will depart immediately and assume command of Legio IV Gallica from Publius Pansa, who will in turn hold position at the former Legio IV base until a new Legion can be built around him. Quintus will set sail immediately, landing outside Apollonia, a walled city that is closest to our territories and thus most easily reinforced. He will assault and take the city and then hold it until Consular I Army can arrive.

The Senate should be aware of the extreme danger that Legio IV Gallica and Senator Quintus will be in. The Greeks are very powerful and have numerous Consular sized armies in their territories. Consular I Army will move with all possible haste to allow the relief of Legio IV if it becomes endangered, but even at maximum speed this may take upwards of two years. Until then Quintus will be alone in hostile lands.

I would urge any messages of encouragement or support be said to Senator Quintus with haste. He will be departing for Apollonia within the day and will only be able to communicate via courier for some time.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

I applaud this strategy and wish both acting consul Verginius and consul Quintus much succes in their respective endavours.

[Braden]

Many offerings to Mars and Jupiter will be made this eve in the name of Quintus, and prayers given to Mercury and Saturn so that they may speed Consular I to Quintus’s aid.

…and lastly sacrifices to Proserpine and Pluto, so that all of the Underworlds fury be sent forth at the Greeks!

[econ21]

[QUINTUS]: Senators, I am grateful to the First Consul for giving this old war horse the chance for one last ride. Harsh words have passed between us but now is not the time to let personal animosities affect matters of state.

And yet, while I am eager to hear the cry of battle again, I do feel a sense of unease about where I am marching to.

Senators, I have a confession to make. Verginius may not have been too far from the truth when he said my old age had unhinged me. I voted for motion 6.6 on the foolish misapprehension that it required only the infiltration of a spy into a Greek settlement - not an assault by a "small" army. Such are the follys of old age. A man of 61 cannot read a few lines of text as well as a boy of 7.

Had I realised that the motion proposed marching a small force into a land easily reinforced from the Greek heartlands, I would not have supported it. Such a move seems reckless, to say the least.

I believe the settlement north of Apollonia is garrisoned by a Consular sized army. It is in marching distance of Apollonia. If our spies cannot open the gates to Apollonia, I fear this large army will immediately march to intercept my force while it is still outside, beseiging the city. The odds will be against us.

Even if we succeed in taking the town, it is but a season or two's march from the main Greek cities and encroachment on their turf will surely provoke a vigorous response.

Neither the First Consul nor I truly wish to undertake this expedition. I have given my reasons for this reluctance. The First Consul's passion and eye remains fixed on the destruction of Gaul. But we both feel that honour compells us to obey the will of the Senate in this case without hesitation or equivocation. That our own intemperate public confrontations have forced this to be a matter of honour for both us is a bitter irony that is perhaps the gods rightful punishment for our vanity and ill-temper.

Senators, I must take my leave and prepare to sail. I will write frequently of my progress. Now that I have unburdened myself of my confession, I hope the Senate will put the fraught debates of the past few days behind us and support the First Consul and I in the difficult time to come.