Court of the Caliph: BC Hotseat Council Thread

[Askthepizzaguy]

I guess the Tuskish Sultan has good hearing...

Or perhaps your aid is a spy.



I would like to make an announcement to the Council:

The Coalition is under negotiations to include a sixth member. We have limited space, and so therefore no other members will be officially included until all other council members have had their oppurtunity to petition us for membership.

I don't want to say that membership will go to the highest bidder, but if your foreign policies align with ours, and you offer us something that contributes to the Coalition, your application will be considered with greater weight than if you approached with demands and incompatible foreign policies.

To petition this Coalition, send a message to either the Turks, the Georgians, the Rajputs, or the Ghaznavids. (any message sent to Armenia would be redundant according to the terms of the Treaty of Adana) Since this ambassador is more available than most, the Turks would particularly welcome negotiation.

[Askthepizzaguy]

edit; double post, please remove

[rossahh]

A smug smile fits upon the man from Jerusalem

You obviously have no idea where our armies are if you say that.

[phonicsmonkey]

The Vizier stands.

Caliph An-Nasir welcomes the formation of the Coalition of Freedom under the Treaty of Tblisi, and commends its stated aims of peace and freedom.

The Abbasid Caliphate will not be a member of the Coalition, but is pleased to be considered its friend.

Let all here present be reminded of the Caliph's desire to work for peace and prosperity between all nations in the region - he feels this purpose is best served if he remains politically neutral.

[Ramses II CP]

The emissary of the Rajputs rushes into the chamber and throws himself to the ground, wailing like an injured child. His tear streaked face is clearly wracked with pain. Finally, after making an unimaginable spectacle, he screams,

'The Maharaja is dead! He is dead! The Light of our Empire, Guardian of the Sacred city, he has fallen in battle! Weep, weep for the Rajput people, and cry to heaven for succor in our name!'



For many long minutes the pathetic show goes on, with abject screams and horrible wails rising from the huddled, collapsed mass of the emissary before at last a pair of strong armed Indian guards move forward and help the emissary stumble out of the chamber, the very picture of wretchedness.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Did the Maharaja die fighting rebellious forces within the Rajputs own nation, or is something more sinister afoot?

[Ramses II CP]

(OOC: It was rebels, completely and 100% my fault. I noted in the OOC thread. Just a stupid thing on my part, I was trying to avoid a negative trait due to not fighting and sent him in before the enemy was fully routing. He took a javelin from my own mercenary war elephants. )

[Banzai Kamikaze]

Staring at the Rajput emissary, wondering if he could ever be so expressive should his Sultan die, the Ayyubid ambassador stands up:

Grave news indeed ! Poems shall be written about his many deeds. May he find peace in heaven.

Turning back to the entire council

I have received a letter written by the holy words of Salahuddin ! He has responded to Makurian raids in the Nile with an army larger than any sea. They say the earth trembles when his army march. The Dark Ones have beheaded our emissary, sent to humbly negociate a peace deal. They have sent his head back. An insult to the Ayyubids ? Nay friends, an insult to He whose sight is infinite !

Salahuddin marches ! Salahuddin will stop these raiders from threatening Africa. Already, the dark soldiers are falling, trampled by thousands of horses.

Allah guides his blade. There will be victory.

[Askthepizzaguy]

OFFICIAL COALITION ANNOUNCEMENT:

The honourable nations of the Great Seljuk Empire and the Imamate of Oman have recently been voted in as full members, and with thier inclusion to the Coalition, and no further petitions, I am closing the petitioning process. Any further alliances will be bi-lateral, nonvoting, nonmember states.

There will be an official addendum to the Treaties of Tblisi and Adana, the details of which will be made public knowledge in official form later on today.

I wish to assure the non-member states that the Coalition is currently at war with no one, even though the Turks are presently at war with the Romans and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (the latter should be resolved quickly, as I have no intentions of invading the Levant at this time, pending Jerusalem's consent to a peace treaty) and we have no plans to act against any nation except in self-defense. We have many official and declared friends of the Alliance. Remember, if your state is neutral with us, please sign a treaty of nonaggression with any one of our member states and we will vote as a group to extend that to the entire Coalition.

Members of the Coalition:

Turkish Sultanate
Armenian Kingdom
Georgian Kingdom
Great Seljuk Empire
Imamate of Oman
Ghaznavid Shah
Solanki Rajputs

[phonicsmonkey]

OOC: There is already a Treaty of Rayy between the Seljuks and the Shah

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ok gotcha. Will propose a different name. For now, Deguerra has his turn and his Coalition membership, and I have to go to work.

[_Tristan_]

The Armenian King invites all members of the coalition to sign the Treaty in Tarsus, last and impregnable Armenian city.

EDIT : And I'm sending bolts of dark red cloth to the Turkish Sultan to give to his needleworkers for the confection of the Coalition flags, the dark red of the Armenian blood spilt by the Romans.

[rossahh]

The man from Jerusalem hisses at the Armenian emissary

Tarsus only stands because of Roman incompetence. If we had led the attack on it you would have perished. Remember that.




Standing and addressing the court


We are very much concerned and destressed by the news that the Turks have attacked our positions in Cicilia. Though our primary armies had withdrawn from the region, those settlements were under the stewardship of our Kingdom, and by taking them you have declared war upon us.

The King has sent no message about our response, if any, against you. He obviously needs time to consider your aggressive actions.


I personally, however, find it highly strange that for people that care about peace so much, the Turks are remarkably adept at causing conflicts to spring up around them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

How might "Turkish arms" (One lone band of Matta... something huntsmen, with exactly 1 attack and 1 defense point) have retaken two heavily fortified Castles owned by the Kingdom of Jerusalem? I mean, I love the compliment, but that's insane.

What ACTUALLY happened was that the Crusaders stole the land from Armenia, raped and pillaged, and then sold the remnants of the once peaceful Armenian territories to the Imperialist scum, the sworn enemy of the Turks, the Roman Empire.

In doing so, they voluntarily withdrew thier armed forces and left NONE remaining. "Primary forces" indeed... you mean all of them, don't you? Not a militia left standing? Not even that one guy with a paper hat and a toy sword who thinks he's Jesus incarnate, ready to battle Satan in an epic battle to the finish LIVE ON PAY-PER-VIEW? I am bound by the Treaty of Adana to reclaim Armenian homelands which they stole in an act of unprovoked war and mass murder. Now that one tiny band of simple hunters managed to reclaim the lands in the name of Armenia, the King of Jerusalem acts with surprise?

What else did you expect us to do? Let Rome, who is at war with us, move in next door?

Of all the absurd things to get mad about... If I left my entire western front unoccupied, I'd hardly have reason to complain if Rome accepted my gift and took my defenseless lands.

I offered you an immediate ceasefire. I don't wish there to be a war between us, but handing our ally's homelands over to our sworn enemies is no act of peace, but a direct insult to the stability of Anatolia and the Turkish Sultan personally.

You play the wounded warrior, but not very well, King Baldwin. You can use this as a pretext for war with us, or you can simply accept that the territories you freely offered Rome were claimed by us before Rome moved in, and realize that this harms Rome only, and not you one tiny bit. Peace or war, the choice is yours, but considering how patient the Turks have been towards a state that butchered their Christian brothers and pawned the lands off to our sworn enemies, I find it amazing that you even consider our moves a surprise.

What surprised me is that you didn't even garrison the castles with one single soldier for the transition. This whole situation is a direct result of YOUR decisions, and you cannot fault the Turks for acting on behalf of the Armenian refugees to reclaim their homelands which were unoccupied.

What an insult it would have been to Armenia if I had just let Rome have them! What kind of fool do you take me for... worse yet, what sort of ally do you take me for?

The Turkish diplomat stands up, still ranting, muttering to himself, and excuses himself from the council chambers, as he's certain to say something which will make peace with Jerusalem impossible. He's only managed to spit out a tiny fraction of Turkish frustration with Jerusalem's actions towards a neutral and practically defenseless state, and then their gifts of territory to our sworn enemy right in front of us...

[phonicsmonkey]

The Vizier stands, scowling

Turk, how is it that your treaties of peace bring nothing but war?

While the Caliph understands your desire not to have the Romans occupy the Cilician territories, he can hardly understand your difficulty in accepting the affront caused to Jerusalem by your moving on them without warning.

The Sultan acts without sensitivity to his neighbours - no state of war existed between the Sultanate and the Kingdom before the Sultan's precipitous actions created one.

The Sultan is clearly the aggressor in this case and should accept that and offer King Baldwin some compensation for the seized territories, which were Baldwin's by right of conquest, to dispense with as he saw fit.

The Caliph's response would have been very different had Armenian armies simply reclaimed their lost lands, but Turkey is not Armenia, whatever your treaties say.

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is an official and public announcement from the acting chairman of the Coalition Action Committee, Sultan Kaikosru of the Turks.

There has been an election to determine who will act as commander in case Coalition forces are attacked. In order to expedite our plans and unite our forces in battle, there will be a position of Supreme Allied Commander of Coalition forces.

His responsibility in peacetime will be to suggest actions to member states, but they do not have to follow his advice.

If the Coalition is attacked, all Member States under the Treaty of Tbilisi are to immediately declare war on the aggressor, and the Supreme Commander's powers will become active. He will direct the movements of our entire Coalition and direct defense funding to the appropriate states, create strategies and execute them to the best of his abilities.

The results of the election:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

3. Vote on Supreme Allied Commander.

A. Turkish Sultan

The Flax

3. A. The Turkish Sultan.

Ramses II CP

Turkish Sultan

Zim

A. Turkish Sultan

Tristan de Castelreng

The Turkish Sultan

Askthepizzaguy

And so it is with heavy responsibility I accept the burden of command of the Coalition, and will honour the oath of office I have taken to act in the common interest to defend all of the Coalition, and not abuse the power of office for personal or national gains. Rest assuredly, even if the Turks are under threat, we will aid and assist central and eastern powers if they are aggressed, by order of priority, depending on which is the most grave threat.

My actions will be monitored and approved by member states, as they will have the ability to remove me from office at any time with a recall election.

I make public this announcement so that states such as the Roman empire think before making further aggression on Coalition forces, and other rogue states do not make the similar mistake to aggress allied nations. Peace will come to all who ask for it from us, and war will come to all who declare it on us.

I will call for a halt on all Turkish movements in Cilicia provided the Kingdom of Jerusalem remains neutral in the Roman/Turkish conflict, which at this time, I deem outside the confines of the Treaty of Tbilisi, and do not at this time ask for nor require Coalition assistance, as our conflict existed prior to the treaty.

Because of this unique situation, I would ask that member states decide individually whether or not to assist the Turks, and in what manner.

For now, Sultan Kaikosru wishes peace and prosperity upon all members of the Council, and offers the loyalty and service of the Turkish people to the greater cause of the Coalition of Peace. So it is written, so it is done.

May Allah's strength allow me to defeat Rome without any interference from third parties, and may the Jihad on Constantinople resume and be concluded swiftly. Let it be clear that the Turks are committed to peace, but all peace negotiations with Rome have utterly failed, no matter the terms we offered. In the face of such hatred, we have only the ideals of peace and brotherhood which we have shared with the council from the beginning, and this more than anything else has earned us the trust and support of our great friends and allies.

Let it be known that this Sultan will never abuse the trust of his good friends, and let it also be known that Coalition forces have NO DESIGNS on conquest of friendly states. I urge all neutral states to sign a nonaggression treaty, and let it be ratified by the Coalition Council.

I also want to honour the leadership and noble sacrifice of our most revered leader, Sultan Kilij Arslan the Indestructible, who commands the forces of Jihad by the right hand of Allah... he is with us in the hearts of all Muslim men, and indeed, his sacrifice on behalf of his Christian allies makes him a revered hero even to non-Muslims. His devotion to justice and truth could not be extinguished, even in death.

With this announcement concluded, I return to my work. May Allah bless us all and give us strength, and may the wisdom of the Council continue to light the path of peace, so that we may finally return our swords to their sheaths and live in prosperity and brotherhood with all nations.

Inshallah, there will be peace in all our lands, and we will quell the rebellions and the mischief makers, sink the pirate raiders, and bring into the fold the various barbarian states of the Kypchaks, the Sindi Peoples, and the wayward Makurians. Then if there should be an invasion in our lands by either the warlike factions of Europe or the various ancient tribes of Chin or Mongolia, we will act as one to repel them.

Allahu Akbar!

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Vizier stands, scowling

Turk, how is it that your treaties of peace bring nothing but war?

While the Caliph understands your desire not to have the Romans occupy the Cilician territories, he can hardly understand your difficulty in accepting the affront caused to Jerusalem by your moving on them without warning.

I ask the Caliph who brought war first onto Cilicia?

The Romans and the Crusaders. They took the lands and attempted to wipe out a neutral state.

Then, they force a cease fire onto Armenia under threat of annihilation.

As for moving on Jerusalem without warning, such an action would INDEED be unfair if Jerusalem had never taken such actions themselves against peaceful states!

Our alliance with Armenia compels us to act to reclaim Armenian lands from the clear aggressors here. The Kingdom of Jerusalem never once signed any treaty with the Turks, nonaggression, peace, or ceasefire agreement. How should we simply let them occupy Cilicia after they have butchered the people there?

I understand the Caliph's desire for peace, but when noble nations surrender to warlike aggressors, there will never be peace, only defeat, occupation, and slaughter.

You call for peace through neutrality and diplomatic actions, formal condemnations, and so forth, as do I. But when there are states who do not kneel before the ideals of peace and negotiation, who do not hear condemnations, who do not engage in diplomacy, who do not show leniency, hesitation, or mercy, then SOMEONE must stand up to them.

I have decided not to sit back in the comfortable chair of diplomatic protests and inaction when faced with the Armenian genocide. I am sorry if acting against the merciless butchers of innocents is seen as aggressive, but why then are THEIR actions not considered ten times more aggressive? Where are the Council's protests about the Armenian Genocide?

Caliph, you have our respect as always, but we disagree that peace can be achieved with nations who have never ONCE asked for it and have shown only mass murder, treachery, and conspiracy to be their diplomatic tools.

With Allah's will, we can disagree on this and still remain friends, honoured Caliph. However, I cannot back down from this stance, as it would be a complete and total betrayal of my principles, which I feel are righteous and correct.

I would seem to have many supporters in that viewpoint. However, I am willing to listen to dissenting opinions. If any state wishes to condemn our justified actions against those who have massacred the innocent, then please, speak now, so that we know where your true loyalties lie.

You can be for justice, and you can be for peace, but sometimes you must choose. Sometimes peace with violent, aggressive, and unreasonable nations leads only to the greatest of tragedies.

The hundreds of thousands of rotting Armenian corpses strewn about Cilicia right now have illicited no such strong reaction from the Council. I've made it clear that I intend no offensive action against Jerusalem, but I never once recognized their claims on our allies' land, nor has their claims to land there been recognized by ANY in the council. Therefore these lands were Jerusalem's in name only, and by NO OTHER MEASURE.

They are rightfully Armenian, and I can never accept any other assesment. I've already concluded the deal to give them back to Armenia.

How would Armenia reclaim it with dead soldiers? We are the forces of Armenia now. You can ask the Armenian King himself, for it is under our protection and support that he survived the massacre, and he does not condemn our actions on behalf of his nation. Like any nation with sense, he will cheer to know his lands are being restored to him, and not claimed in the name of the Turks.

[phonicsmonkey]

The Vizier has been drawn into debate with the Turkish Emissary

Turk, would that your words were less multitudinous, that we could spend less time wrestling with them.

The fact remains that the Turkish Sultan has, without warning or consultation, moved on a neutral country and seized several territories.

Whatever he intends to do with them, and whatever his motivations for doing so, and whatever the previous actions of the owners of those territories, this is an act of aggression against a neutral nation.

As for condemning previous acts of aggression, the Caliph has made it perfectly clear all along that he will not accept or condone warlike behaviour from any in the region - if he has failed to condemn specific acts in a vocal enough manner for the Turkish Sultan, he would point out that the true situation at the time of the Kingdom's invasion of Cilicia was not clear to the Caliph.

For the record, the Caliph condemns the aggression of Rome and Jerusalem against Armenia, and decries their imperialist tendencies.

But the Turkish Sultan cannot simply expect all in the region to take him at his word and trust his intentions without question - his self-appointed role as protector of Armenia is not without its benefits to the Sultan, and on a cynical reading provides him with many excuses to seize territory from and cause trouble with his neighbours.

And we have seen much of that!

Indeed, for the Sultan to be trusted he must act in such a way to earn trust - and from the Caliph's perspective an attack on a neutral neighbouring country with no warning to his friends and allies is not the way to do so.

[rossahh]

The Romans and the Crusaders. They took the lands and attempted to wipe out a neutral state.

True.


Then, they force a cease fire onto Armenia under threat of annihilation.

False. They offered peace freely, I accepted.


Our alliance with Armenia compels us to act to reclaim Armenian lands from the clear aggressors here. The Kingdom of Jerusalem never once signed any treaty with the Turks, nonaggression, peace, or ceasefire agreement. How should we simply let them occupy Cilicia after they have butchered the people there?

Then you freely admit to attacking us without warning or provocation on our part?


Where are the Council's protests about the Armenian Genocide?

What Genocide? All soldiers captured were released. All settlements were sacked and pillaged, not exterminated. We let the survivors flee into Turkish Anatolia.


The hundreds of thousands of rotting Armenian corpses strewn about Cilicia right now have illicited no such strong reaction from the Council. I've made it clear that I intend no offensive action against Jerusalem, but I never once recognized their claims on our allies' land, nor has their claims to land there been recognized by ANY in the council. Therefore these lands were Jerusalem's in name only, and by NO OTHER MEASURE.

The cross flew over their gates and they were under our stewardship. We did not claim them for ourselves - we took them from our enemy in a time of war. Are we not supposed to attack our enemies in a time of war?




If you really acted on behalf of your allies, why did you not fight against Roman and Latin forces in Armenia on their behalf when they desperately needed military support?

Why did you not attack us until well after the war between Jerusalem and Armenia was concluded?

Why do you strike an act of war and desire an immediate cease-fire without any sort of compensation without even considering that we would at least pause to consider our response?

[Ramses II CP]

An older Indian man, clearly not the same emissary as previously, enters the Council chamber and begs permission to speak in the name of the Maharaja. (Assuming the Caliph consents)

Gentlemen what confuses me here is in what sense were these cities owned by the Kingdom of Jerusalem? Surely almost every citizen still thought of themselves as Armenian. Surely if the city had no garrison the men of Jerusalem were not intent on keeping it. In fact is removing the soldiers protecting it not tantamount to declaring a city free and open? I would not pretend to be shocked if I left my border towns undefended and the Ghorid Sultan claimed them, he would have to be mad to do otherwise. Rebels and pirates would take power and plague both our lands if some reputable institution did not step in to lay claim.

I do not like the idea that the Coalition of which I have just become a member may be thrust into yet another war. Indeed, it distresses me greatly! That being said, if no Latin lives were lost and the cities were undefended, why does the representative from Jerusalem care? Clearly he did not care enough to protect his holdings.

The elderly gentlemen bows low to the Caliph and excuses himself to the side of the chamber to speak with the emissary of the Turks.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As an OOC matter, if this was your way of transferring the territories to the ERE (Letting him 'occupy' them to generate free florins, then redeclaring your alliance immediately) IMHO that is an exploit. If you want to give territories away, give them via diplomacy. We could all trade towns back and forth on our border for extra florins and chivalry points to boot, but the game would start to look pretty absurd if we did.

edit: Spoke to Rossah about the OOC above, and it was clearly not his or the ERE's intent. I hope it wasn't taken as an accusation, but to avoid further problems I'll spoiler tag that OOC bit, leaving it only so no one thinks I said something nasty and deleted it. ;)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Having said many things of late, and not wishing to monopolize the discussion, the Turkish ambassador sends a written statement to all council members:

Open the scroll to read our response

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You will hear our responses to the Caliph and King Baldwin at some future point.

In the meantime, I wish to clarify to all Coalition member states, friendly states, bilateral allies, and neutral parties, that although the Turkish Sultan is the Supreme Commander of Coalition forces, he will not drag the rest of you into a war that he (technically.... and ONLY technically) started with Jerusalem. Does this assuage your concerns, my Hindu friend? (directed towards the Rajput ambassador)

Indeed he's asking for a cease-fire now, but there will be no conditions to that cease fire. He does not ask his allies to attack Rome or Jerusalem, because they are under no obligation to do so. Indeed, any support received by this state from others is purely voluntary.

The Coalition is not a pawn of the Turks. Everyone here voted to join, voluntarily, and supports Turkish aims only if they are honourable and justifiable. If we are indeed on the wrong side of justice, surely my allies will not let their reputations be dragged through the mud by associating themselves with me. They will condemn my actions here, and now.

Let me hear your condemnations, if you feel I deserve them. As my friends, I value your opinions most of all.

But the Rajput ambassador is right, I think. The actions of Jerusalem here have been the aggressive ones. Their claims to Armenia are not recognized by any state other than the Roman Empire. They also abandoned the lands that they killed so many people to claim, leaving the people there without Armenian soldiers to defend them, or indeed any soldiers of any kind. The Armenian people are glad it is Turkish "arms" (huntsmen) who have liberated them, rather than some group of rogues and cutthroats like the Romans.

The Turks have acted unilaterally in defense of Armenia, and I cannot expect the Coalition to back me. They do so only if they feel I am on the side of justice, and they will do it without orders from the Commander of the Allies.

[Zim]

After the recent announcements the Ghaznavid table is in an uproar. Their former ambassador dimissed and the new one not yet arrived, there is no order to the discussions at the table. Various aids and attendants are in fierce debate over subjects ranging from how to honor the death of the Maharaj of India to what to make to of the Turkish-KOJ conflict, while scribes attempt to prepare a summary of events in anticipation of the arrival of the new head ambassador. Until he arrives, it is unlikely that any real decisions will be made by the Ghaznavid section of the Council.

[_Tristan_]

The mail-clad messenger rises from his seat and mimicking the falsetto voice of the Jerusalem emissary, adresses the council.

Tarsus only stands because of Roman incompetence. If we had led the attack on it you would have perished. Remember that.

False. They offered peace freely, I accepted.

Resuming his own tones of voice, the messenger goes on.

Do you see now how you forced us into a ceasefire ? We are no fools, we knew full well that any fight to keep our homeland or even more reclaim it from Latin scum would have been a lost cause...

Thus, we offered a ceasefire, which we didn't expect to be accepted, in truth, if only to gain us time... Time to gain shelter and be there to fight another day...

Shall I remind you that it was you and not the Romans who killed our King and Prince and most of our fighting men ? Such wrongs will not soon be forgotten...

Do you think your pillaging of our cities was committed without the least atrocities such as rape and murder ?

Let it be known to you that had we been able to reclaim the cities and castles you left defenceless we would have done it immediately without a thought to the breaking of that extorted truce.

I, acting in the name of Takavor Hetum, wishes to thank our Turkish ally for his stewardship of our lands and hope that Jerusalem will see sense and accept the status quo resulting from the Sultan offer of ceasefire.

Caliph, we have great respect for the work you do in maintaining peace in and around your lands... Do not condemn the Turks who acted on our behalf... Had they waited even a single day, our lands would have been claimed by the Romans who would have committed who knows what new atrocities on the innocent and peaceful people of Armenia.

Once resettled into its former homeland, you will all witness how Armenia will become a haven of peace and freedom.

Clearly seeing this bountiful era in his mind's eye, the messenger remains standing a long moment before shaking the stupor and sitting back down.

[Ferret]

The Ghorid representative chuckles at the Armenian's impression. He has been sleeping rather than listen to the constant pointless agruing.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The fact remains that the Turkish Sultan has, without warning or consultation, moved on a neutral country and seized several territories.

Indeed, a neutral country who had, without warning or consultation, moved on a neutral country and seized several territories.

Whatever he intends to do with them, and whatever his motivations for doing so, and whatever the previous actions of the owners of those territories, this is an act of aggression against a neutral nation.

And so therefore, you should rightly condemn Jerusalem for doing precisely that, and commend us for righting a wrong. I did not have time to consult with my allies, all of whom so far have had no objections, especially since I've made it clear I do not wish to involve them in the conflict. I certainly did not have time to consult with a neutral party regarding military action, because I reserve the right to defend myself and my allies from invaders who occupy territory that does not belong to them and is not recognized as theirs.

As for condemning previous acts of aggression, the Caliph has made it perfectly clear all along that he will not accept or condone warlike behaviour from any in the region - if he has failed to condemn specific acts in a vocal enough manner for the Turkish Sultan, he would point out that the true situation at the time of the Kingdom's invasion of Cilicia was not clear to the Caliph.

You do not however need to explain your lack of condemnation to the Turkish Sultan. Your opinions are your own, and we will not begrudge you having differing ones from ours. You are free to make whatever condemnations you want, or refrain from doing so. When all the facts come to light, your reaction will give us a clue as to how serious the Abassid Caliphate is regarding the ideals of peace and justice.

We will not push you further to condemn Jerusalem, because that has always been your right. I fear however, that unless a cease-fire has been signed, such diplomatic words will not be enough.

For the record, the Caliph condemns the aggression of Rome and Jerusalem against Armenia, and decries their imperialist tendencies.

Hear, hear!

It warms the heart of the Turkish sultan to hear this. Though not quite as passionate and verbose as your questioning of our actions in response to their tyranny, this public condemnation of Latin aggression from a neutral observer serves to de-legitimize their occupation of Armenian lands. And for that, let the Council of the Caliph know that we intend to not only de-legitimize their occupation, we intend to finally end that occupation.

Already 3 settlements have been voluntarily restored to Armenia. Whether Armenia has the troops to defend these territories, I cannot say. But since it is clear that Turkish occupation of these lands is unacceptible, I've personally made the decision not to occupy Cilicia. This was long before any of you were aware of my actions. Indeed, I gave them to Armenia on my own without hesitation. This should prove I have no intentions against Cilicia for my own purposes.

But the Turkish Sultan cannot simply expect all in the region to take him at his word and trust his intentions without question - his self-appointed role as protector of Armenia is not without its benefits to the Sultan, and on a cynical reading provides him with many excuses to seize territory from and cause trouble with his neighbours.

Yes, but in order to be so cynical we must also ignore Rome and Jerusalem's own actions in Cilicia. What benefit does it serve the Sultan to start a second war that we aren't even prepared to fight? Indeed we sacrificed much already for Armenia.

We've given them lands and shelter, food to eat, and we've defended them with our lives.

We've gone to war with the first state that attacked them, Rome, to repel them from Cilicia by giving the Romans their own homelands to worry about. And they have still failed to claim even a single Armenian province.

It is only through our mortal failings and our lack of armies anywhere near Jerusalem that prevented us from acting against the Latins as well. Would that we had some, we would have acted.

One can hardly condemn the Turks for both acting in defense of their ally, and not acting enough! Especially when we have been the sole defender of Armenia!

And we have seen much of that!

Indeed, for the Sultan to be trusted he must act in such a way to earn trust - and from the Caliph's perspective an attack on a neutral neighbouring country with no warning to his friends and allies is not the way to do so.

Had I not acted to reclaim Armenian lands which had been raped by Latin aggressors, had I stood idle while they stole lands which did not belong to them, had I allowed them to be sold into slavery under the banner of Roman Imperialism, what kind of trustworthy ally would I be?

If one of your states were attacked by a merciless and unprovoked aggressor, and Turkish arms were nearby to offer support, and we had publicly and profusely pledged to render aid and assistance, and then we refused to do so...

how might the Council view our nation then? What kind of civilized people stand back and do nothing when an entire nation is beseiged, attacked, plundered, raped, and sold into slavery, especially when they have a choice???

We do not hold any ill will towards nations too distant to assist Armenia. You are not at fault, you were never in any condition to render aid. But the Turks were. I wonder how all my new allies would feel had I abandoned Armenia and allowed this horror to continue.

I have much to gain by keeping Armenia alive, friend and ally. I have much more to lose by placing my entire Sultanate under the direct threat of not only Roman Imperialism, but Crusader aggression. Oh, if I were some kind of superpower, the council might rightly view me as a cynical aggressor who is manipulating the circumstances to his own advantage. But truth be told, we have no army in the region capable of fighting. But Jerusalem be warned, we can easily redeploy if they invade us.

And as for the Latin representative:

Then you freely admit to attacking us without warning or provocation on our part?

You freely admit to attacking Armenia without warning or provocation, and then you dare to feign indignation? Had we once claimed to attack your rightful and legal possessions which have been recognized by the international community, we would understand your outrage. As it stands, you abandoned Cilicia to a foreign power... just not the one you thought it would be. Indeed, the rightful owners of the land will, at least briefly, once again hold their territory which BELONGS to them.

What Genocide? All soldiers captured were released. All settlements were sacked and pillaged, not exterminated. We let the survivors flee into Turkish Anatolia.

You sacked and pillaged your own Christian brother's homeland, and slaughtered their defensive armies, and attempted to wipe them from the face of the earth. Whether or not you were merciful with captured prisoners which you released into the wilderness... with no homelands to go to... you are still a brutal and amoral warlord unfit to call himself a Holy Crusader. Attempting to wipe from the Earth the Armenian nation, sack their cities and sell them into Roman slavery... that is the act of a genocidal maniac who is only too cowardly to exterminate the populace himself.

The cross flew over their gates and they were under our stewardship. We did not claim them for ourselves - we took them from our enemy in a time of war. Are we not supposed to attack our enemies in a time of war?

I spit in the general direction of your emissary, who DEFILES the Cross which represents the selfless and peaceful virtues of true Christianity with his perversion of one of the world's Great and Holy faiths. We may not consider Jesus our lord, but we Muslims have always respected him as a prophet and a saint.

The Armenians were NOT YOUR ENEMY. The only war there was the war you brought upon them. Speak no more, for your villany has been exposed with every word you utter....

If you really acted on behalf of your allies, why did you not fight against Roman and Latin forces in Armenia on their behalf when they desperately needed military support?

Why did you not attack us until well after the war between Jerusalem and Armenia was concluded?

First you, like the Caliph before you, condemn us for acting. Then you say we acted too little and too late. I question what standard of justice, if any, you are applying to our actions. Your highly subjective and hypocritical accusations towards us CRUMBLE UNDER THE RULES OF YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

Why do you strike an act of war and desire an immediate cease-fire without any sort of compensation without even considering that we would at least pause to consider our response?

We are to compensate YOU for attacking our ally? Such insults will have to be ignored if there is to be peace.

Where are YOUR reparations towards the Armenians? Consider your response all you like. It is either a cease-fire, once all of Cilicia is reclaimed by a nation other than Jerusalem, or no cease-fire. Those are the GENEROUS terms we have offered you. Do not test my patience further, as I've expended far too much patience on you.

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

And so you can bear witness to the correctness of our argument and the illegitimacy of Roman or Latin occupation of Cilicia. Witness also our firm convictions, which cannot be swayed except by a just and reasonable argument. All the rhetorical skill in the world cannot twist a war crime into a legitimate occupation. There must be truth behind your arguments, or we cannot hear them.

Friends, allies, neutral parties, and worthy adversaries... we are not swayed by easily deconstructed and fallacious arguments.

[The Lemongate]

The Empire is fully intent on pursuing it's current policies versus the rebellious Armenians and the deceitful Sultanate of Ikonion. After a long series of communications that seemed fruitful, the Empire received information showing the supposed "Alliance of Peace" to which the Turks even had the gall of inviting us had in fact been created to fuel it's belligerent plans against the Empire and the Latin Kingdom.

To Council members who want the proof of the Turk's effrontery in these chambers, we are willing to send proof of their communications. However, we have it on good measure that most of you already know of this and have already chosen to back the viper in its murderous intent.

Your combined armies and wealth may one day defeat Rome, and if this happens, heaven will be filled with the souls of the brave who stood to defend our freedoms and our way of life. However, should we be victorious, none of you will find succor as long as the Basileos' reign in Konstantinopolis.

Having finished, the Roman leaves the room followed by the rest of his delegation. Late in the night, a aid informs the Vizier that the entire Roman delegation has left Baghdad. It seems improbable that Rome would send another delegation any time soon.

[Ramses II CP]

Watching the spectacle the new emissary of the new Maharaja develops an exaggerated expression of shock and concern. When the Roman diplomat threatens the Turk's allies his expression of concern grows into one of obvious and overwhelming fear. He then leans over to whisper to a nearby messenger in a loud, quavering falsetto:

'Call up the reserves! The Romans are coming! They've only got six other empires to fight through before they reap their revenge!'

Politely concealed sniggers break out around the chamber as the Roman delegate departs.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If the Romans wish to publish our private communications, they do it with the knowledge that we have saved all of theirs as well in an archive.

To clarify to my allies: The Roman-Turkish peace talks were provisional. There were many contingency plans, one of which would have been Rome's peaceful integration with the rest of the civilized world. These talks ended when a spy from within the Coalition provided the Romans word of our alternative contingency plan, which involved the conquest of the Roman state if peace were not to have been achieved.

Since we did not know how the Romans would behave, it was only prudent to have at least two courses of action planned. Indeed we had similar plans with the Kingdom of Jerusalem to establish peace between us and expel the Roman forces, in case the Latin King ever decided to renounce his imperialist aims.

Since the peace talks fell apart, I have no choice but to commit my state to war with Rome, and I've also chosen to commit my state to peace with King Baldwin, assuming he makes no further aggressive movements towards the Armenians, or makes any towards any Coalition member state.

I don't know what the Roman is driving at with this "revelation". If they think that they can embarrass us with "damaging" evidence of Turkish duplicity in private message, they should know that we have similar proof of their own lies in private.

Intrigue and deception are part of war. We are at war with you, Roman. Although we were honest about wanting peace, you apparently decided you wanted nothing of it when you discovered we were arming for any possible further aggression with us, and intercepted contingency plans for the war with Rome should our peace talks have failed.

Since you have probably already forwarded the private messages in question, Turkish policy towards untrustworthy states who are at war with us seems clear. Indeed, we never once claimed to always tell the truth to our opponents.

Since our actions in battle have been honourable, our policy towards allied and neutral states has been honourable, and we've backed every public claim we've made, I don't particularly feel threatened by anyone seeing proof of Turkish contingency plans regarding a hostile aggressor state.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OOC- sharing information intercepted with your allies privately, is one thing, but making your private messages public is frowned upon OOC by everyone. It defeats the purpose of private messaging and will make everyone reluctant to message you privately in the future. If you wish to "go there:, you will damage yourself and your reputation in the process, and no one will have further IC or OOC dealings with you. I don't believe anyone would be especially shocked by my propaganda campaign against the Romans, nor would they be all that surprised to hear what you've been saying behind closed doors. In other words, no one cares and it's not a particularly effective tool.

[deguerra]

The Imam of Oman and Sultan of Muscat wishes to point out:

1. That he joined an Alliance which expressly stated it was not at war, and would only be at war if someone declared war on a country in the Alliance.

2. That he has no personal quarrel with the Roman Emperor, nor any other nation, and would at best like to see the current conflict resolved peacefully and quickly.

3. That he has neither the intention, nor the capabilities of joining in said current conflict, and does not feel bound by his new obligations under the Alliance to do so.

4. That threats such as those of the Roman Emperor will only lessen others' opinion of him, given that Oman has threatened noone.

and 5. That in any case, as my Rajput counterpart so wittily pointed out, the Imam Sultan is not easily threatened by an Empire half a world away.

Praise be to God!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Warm welcome to the alliance, my Omani friend!

Indeed Turkish policy and Coalition policy is designed at present not to throw members into this conflict in Anatolia. And friendly and entirely neutral states like the Omans are really only in this alliance for their security and protection, and have no wish to join in any conflicts. They also make an excellent tie-breaking voting member who seems quite impartial.

Why anyone would threaten the Omans is truly mind-boggling, as they've been entirely uninvolved and only recently became aware of what the Coalition had decided to do before they even became a member state.

The Romans would be advised that making friends would seem to be the best way to pressure the Turks into peace, and actually acting peacefully would be the first start in order to wage that diplomatic war. Swearing an oath not to aggress further into Turkish lands or Armenian lands would take all the fire out of our arguments and make the council truly look down upon the Turks for persuing this war into your own borders.

OOC- Wait... Why am I giving you hints? I'm getting much too soft for this game.