View Full Version : WotS Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations II
A proposal of an alliance with Carthage? Never have I heard such a foolish thing! The Carthaginians would attack us at first opportunity. An offer of alliance will appear as a sign of weakness, a sign that we are unable to pursue further war with them. In addition to that, if they see few troops stationed in Sicily, it will be an invitation.
To ensure that Carthage will attack Iberia rather than Sicily, we must appear stronger than the Iberians. For that reason, come mid-term, I will propose a small raid on Africa and the sacking of one Carthaginian city.
{Galerius Vatinius}
The Aemilii have a point indeed. I support a ceasefire with Carthage, even possibly an alliance. Trade and peace with them would certainly be to our benefit. They may be just the tool to help keep the Iberians in check, otherwise we may be facing a major war with them in the very near future, considering we are about to take the bordering Gallic towns.
Senator Coruncanius, your proposal is that of a senseless warmonger. You must know when to make war and when to make peace and with whom. We do not have the resources to wage war with Carthage. What little we have is much better spent in our eastern frontier in the campaign around the Danube.
Forgive my brashness Senator Coruncanius, but are you delusional? I think perhaps the loss of your son has made you reckless and ill inclined to the preservation of Rome as an honorable state. Seek your blood with Macedon, not Carthage. Carthage, as things stand, is the strongest potential ally for Rome against the rest of a barbarian world..I will never support the undue sacking of a Carthaginian city, particularly after we have spent DECADES at peace with them. For what would you incite such a lengthy peace to old violence? This is an irrational course of action you propose.
And as for Vatinius and my uncle Marcellus...if Sicily is to be garrisoned I see no reason why the Sicilian legion cannot be returned after it's current campaign ends. A new legion can be raised if necessary to take up where they left off. But if the concern of a powerful Carthage must be defensively adressed, why replace a veteran legion of those lands with raw, green recruits?
Just so as to see that my position is not misunderstood, I do believe Sicily, as our southernmost border and the crutch of trade between the eastern and western mediterranean, requires more than the simple city garrisons to remain a safe section of the republic. But I feel the best course of action for its defense would be to simply return the Legio Sicilia to Sicily at the end of its campaign.
GeneralHankerchief
08-13-2006, 03:01
Sacking one Carthaginian city is the surest way to get tangled into a full-scale war with them, Senator Coruncanius. Look at the logic from a Carthaginian perspective:
You're fresh off of unifying West Africa and feel like you're prepared to take on mightier enemies. Iberia and your former lands are a hop across the Strait of Gilbralter away. Meanwhile, the mighty Romans have just taken over the entire Balkan Peninsula and their feared navy stands between you and your former islands. The choice is a no-brainer.
But wait, something happens. A small Roman force comes and has the nerve to siege one of your cities! You haven't done anything to anger them. And if this is the best they have, surely Rome must have been weakened by their two decades of war. So you go after Rome instead.
~~~~
While this tactic worked well with Appolonia, you forget that the Mediterranean is no Adriatic. Stranding a commander in Carthaginian homelands with a small force is something I'd only give to... well... Laevinius.
I am not proposing an Apollonia-like expendition. No one will be stranded anywhere. I am proposing a raid. Raid, sack, and abandon. Less than one season should actually be spent on land in Africa. It would work against unwalled cities, even walled ones if a siege engineer was constructed and ballistae built. It would be a show of Roman power, that even though we're engaged in major far away wars, we can still sack a city in Africa just because we feel like it. They would not dare to actually attack us.
And no, we have not been at peace with Carthage for "decades". The last violent action with Carthage occured during the summer of 263.
Keep also in mind that the war in the east is winding down as we plan not to advance past the Danube.
{Galerius Vatiniuis}
I don't think any such brash action against Carthage is necessary at this time, unless the end-result of such a maneuver is the conquest of all of their lands in Northern Africa. I believe there are two possible scenarios for us at the moment. Seek a peace with Carthage, give incentive for them to take on the Iberians and give us a little breathing room in the west. Or achieve our goals in the east, setting up a border across the Danube, then focus all our attention to Africa and take our the Carthaginians once and for all. I personally prefer the former, but might be persuaded to see it Senator Coruncanius' way, if properly compensated... perhaps leading the said expedition?
Who is this "we" senator Coruncanius? Roman legions have already crossed the Danube in the action of taking Ratiari, against my suggestions and attempts at dilluting some of this false bravado of invincibility by some of our tribunes. Need I remind you that two legions have been completely decimated very recently. And your idea of the war winding down somehow permits it reasonable and logical to start it right back up somewhere else, against a fully confident and experienced enemy, coming from a serious victory with the destruction of Numidia. This is nonsense.
And you senator Vatinius, I knew there had to be some alternate reasoning behind your sudden moderation. You would support peace only unless offered the chance to lead roman men to their deaths. Marcellus may have been quick to find your sudden change of heart appealing, but do not think that I did not know better.
So many warmongers among the senate these days. There is absolutely no need for a war with Carthage if an alliance can be forged. To think otherwise is bloodlust and lunacy.
We are already at war, Senator Aemilius, I propose to start nothing. In fact, I voted to start that war before you were born! I merely propose to remind the Carthagnians of the fact that we are at war. For so long they have conducted a "war" with Rome without even getting so much as a bloody nose. I find that this shows weakness on our part, and I will not stand for it!
As for who should lead it, I do not care. I will not propose any legislation specifying a commander. If you want to suck up, go find the First Consul.
GeneralHankerchief
08-13-2006, 04:55
Carthage poses no threat to us whatsoever if we send our fleet to guard the waters of Sicily. Much has changed since the last major period of action between the two of us. They would not risk an amphibious assault when the stakes are an entire army.
No, the proper action in this case is diplomacy. Some may consider it un-Roman, but fellow Senators, it's logical. We make peace with Carthage (but make sure to keep that fleet guarding Sicily), and immediately Iberia is weakened. First, they are now under attack from both sides of the Mediterranean. Secondly, we get funding for the war against them! I cannot see how a display of force against the Punics would help anything.
A renewed war against them would help nothing, all I see here is a shamed senator crying for more Roman death and bloodshed because he is not within the capacity to return his son from the afterlife.
Senator Coruncanius, as far as you not standing for peace with Carthage, then by all means senator, sit down.
I say let there be an alliance with Carthage, she could take back her lost territories in Iberia, and it would calm our western front, giving the Republic some breathing room to deliberate on the best possible strategy for the years ahead.
You see very little, Servius Aemilius.
Mount Suribachi
08-13-2006, 10:09
I support those who would propose peace with Carthage - but I say this. Do not expect them to accept peace. They are a proud and stiff-necked people. Even if we were to offer them 10,000 denarii rtibute every season for the next 100 years, I doubt they would accept a ceasefire.
I do not propose that we offer them tribute, but I do propose that we try and get a ceasefire with them. And when they reject it, then, Jupiter willing, we make plans to invade and destroy them.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-13-2006, 14:33
I am pleased to see such a lively debate. I just want to clarify some issues at this moment.
Carthage and Rome have been at war for a very long time, but hostile actions have stopped once we conquered Sicily and the islands. Still, no cease fire has ever been signed, altough several attempt were made by us to reach an agreement. Trade with Carthage would be extremely profitable for us. They have shown that they are capable of mounting naval invasions and we should be wary of this.
The only troops that crossed the Danube are the Legio I Italia Victrix. My reason for this action is that it is the only way I could think of to stop the Thracian invasions. The taking of Luvavum should shift the action to that town and relieve pressure on Aquileia. We still need a legion there to guard that border crossing. The second legion recruited after this will be posted there, if possible.
Tiberius Coruncanius will guard the river crossing at Ratiaria, and attack any Thracian forces that enter our territory. Then he will withdraw to the crossing again. I will not allow Roman troops to stay on the other side of the river.
I encourage you to continue the debate and propose motion in the upcoming senate session (2 more turns).
SwordsMaster
08-13-2006, 14:33
I will support those who wish peace and trade with Carthage.
Senators, I am not a young man anymore, and Rome has been at war for as long as I can remember. It is time to take a deep breath. Not to become a nation of cowards, but to be ready to strike with more force when the time and circumstances are right.
Carthage is getting stronger, but they are in a similar position. They have the powerful Egyptians as neighbours, just as we have the Iberians, and they have a reason to wage war in Iberia, just as we do in Thrace.
We need reorganisation, our men need rest. We need reinforcements, organise the army to a homogeneous structure again, and setup proper garrisons in the newly acquired regions.
I would even go further, and not only propose a ceasefire and trading rights to Carthage, but also a ceasefire to the Thracians to reorganise our frontline, and setup a line of forts on the Danube, and bring in fresh armies from Italy.
As of my opinion about the need of trade with Carthage, I believe it is obvious. We need money. And who better than our old enemy to provide it?
Mount Suribachi
08-13-2006, 15:04
OOC: I believe there is a landblock between Egypt & Carthage, so war between those 2 is unlikely. Is there a landbridge across the straits of Gibraltar?
I too support peace with Carthage. There is much to be gained from a formal ceasefire and much to be lost from open warfare. Increased profits and a secure southern provinces would be enormously beneficial. Blockade of our ports and a further straining of our Legions would tax us to our limits.
I believe it is in our best long-term interests to broker a peace with Carthage. In order to do this, we will need a new diplomat to propose this treaty, as our current diplomats have already been discredited in their eyes. A new man will have a better chance of reaching an agreement. I believe that we will also have to be prepared to give them short-term benefits in order to gain the formal ceasefire. However, this would be money wisely spent, as it would be rapidly returned to our coffers in increased trade. Furthermore, Carthage is bound to seek to expand outside of Africa now that Numidia is finally subdued. There are only two logical routes of expansion for them, through Sicily and through Iberia. We have already spent much time debating the worth of the Iberians and I think that we would all be pleased to see them attacked from the south by Carthage. Therefore, let us make strenuous efforts to gain a formal ceasefire with these people.
I would be willing to support a one-time 'donation' to Carthage of up to 20,000 dinari if it resulted in peace. Another possible option is Bourges. Taking Bourges would finally eliminate the Gauls as an organized enemy, but it is fully enclosed in Iberian provinces and we do not have any desire for it. Perhaps Carthage would be interested in this provice though. We should take it and offer it to them if it would aid in reaching a formal ceasefire. In addition, the close borders that it would create with Iberia might fan the flames of their old war once again.
Were it necessary, I would even accept the return of Melite to Carthage if a ceasefire could not be gained any other way. This island brings little profit to the Republic and there was never a great struggle to take it in the first place. It would not be dishonorable to Rome to return Melite in order to gain peace with Carthage, if no other proposal was acceptable to them.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Given that the mid-term session of Senate is not far away, the nature of the offer to be made to Carthage might be reserved to be decided by motions made then. However, as preparation, I second Augustus Verginius's to recruit a new diplomat. In addition, I suggest transferring the ancillaries gathered by our older, more discredited diplomats. We should aim to create a particularly influential diplomat who will be reserved for making offers that are either of the utmost importance or very likely to be accepted.
I agree with Numerius Aureolus, legislation would be an effective way to determine the limits that the Republic will allow in negotiating a ceasefire with Carthage. When the mid-term session begins, I will propose each individual bargaining point suggestion as its own piece of legislation and I urge others to do the same. For instance, I will propose a motion to authorize up to 20,000 dinarii, a second motion to authorize the ceding of Melite, and a third motion to authorize the ceding of Bourges, if it is taken. Legislating in this manner will allow for each individual asset that can be proposed to be voted for or against on its own terms, without limiting any other aspect of the deal. I believe in this way we can give the next Consul the maximum available options in any negotiations he may make with Carthage.
I could be partial to sending the Carthaginians up to 20,000 denarii, as you have stated, but an expedition to Bourges would send a Roman legion through Iberian territory, I would rather not prompt the Iberians into misconception and have them attack the legion. Melite, on the other hand, is of little use to Rome, and if we have not already spent a significant amount of money trying to incorporate it into the Republic, than perhaps its return to Carthage could be the building block to a much better relationship with our African neighbors.
Mount Suribachi
08-13-2006, 20:01
I am glad to see that some of you are level-headed enough to see that peace may come with a price, and are prepared to pay that price.
At this point may I bring up the other factor in the Rome/Carthage equation, namely, Iberia.
We have all been discussing peace with Carthage as a way of helping us avoid war with Iberia. But there is another way to help prevent that; namely, to induce Iberia into renewing hostilities with Carthage. This may involve some kind of treaty with Iberia, perhaps even giving them some of the Gallic settlements we are currently besieging.
You there!
*points at slave*
Quick, go help Augustus Verginius, he seems to be choking on something!
Are you that afraid of Carthage, Senators, that you would pay them tribute? Yes, that's what it is. I never thought I'd see the day when Rome was paying tribute to another nation. I am deeply worried about its future.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-13-2006, 21:20
I side with Tiberius Coruncanius, and will not support any attempt to give away hardwon territory.
The offer of 20.000 is also excessive in my opinion, altough I would be willing to go as far as 5.000, IF they accept trade along with the ceasefire.
I am willing to support the idea of a superdiplomat.
There is no landbrige in the straits of Gibraltar. What we could try, ifwe get into a war with Iberia, is to conquer some of Carthage's old Spanish provinces and give it to them freely. Then they would go all out in sending troops to fight Iberia. If the AI does not have a beachhead he is reluctant to invade.
OCC : Peace offers to Carthage on VH/M are pointless as long as we hold territory that was theirs originally. I do not believe they will settle for anything less than the return of all their old provinces, and then they will immediately attack us as we are their neighbours, thus making this exercise pointless. If we were playing M/VH or even H/VH this plan might actually have a chance of succes. On VH diplomacy is almost impossible.
There is one more thing I'd like to point out. There seems to be some confusion about the location of the Danube. Legion I and Lucius Aemilius have not crossed the Danube. The river they crossed was the Savus, Danube is further to the north. Both Iuvavum and Oduba lie on our side of the Danube.
Mount Suribachi
08-13-2006, 21:47
*A messenger walks into the Senate, having received approval from the speaker he unrolls a scroll and begins to read it*
"Conscript Fathers, Publius Pansa sends you greetings from Philipi, former capital of the Macedonian "empire". I won't bore you with details of the battle, it really was quite tedious. Those wretched Macedonians take so long to die without actually killing anyone. Well, Romans anyway. Auxilia and Mercenaries are so good at charging their phalanxes whilst my Legionaries flank them.
Anyway, like I said, boring battle. The wine though, ahh, they have some excellent wine. The officers of the 4th and I are enjoying some wonderful grape. Anyway I digress.
Oh, I've written a poem by the way, the men love it, let me know what you think.
There was an old ruler from Greece
Who had a voluptuous niece
She had men in fits
With her lovely big tits
She even takes it up the ringpiece"
*At the last line the messengers voice trails off into silence amid a stunned senate, apart from a few senators who can be seen & heard trying to stifle their laughter*
Senator Coruncanius, the fact of the matter remains that Dardania was taken, Dardania having territory on both sides of the Danube. Having Roman territory on both sides of the Danube is going to make it much more difficult to prove to the northern barbarians that Rome has no interest in lands north of the river.
Grandfather Lucius, I can understand your position in regards to territory, but sometimes concessions must be made for the greater good.
And although 20,000 seems like a lot of money, how is 5,000 supposed to buy us peace? A mere 5,000 denarii can barely pave the roads of one province.
Servius Aemilius, the objective of stopping conquests at the Danube was not to appease barbarians, but to provide an easily defensible frontier that is the river itself. In order to be able to defend at Danube's fords, we must take all settlements on our side of the river. Some of those settlements do control territory on the other side, but it should not be very difficult to defend.
On an unrelated subject, I am most distrubed to find that Argeos of Pharsalus, the very last member of the Macedonian royal family, escaped from Philippi. This would not have happened had there not been numerous delays in Legion IV's movement. I find this to be an inexcusable failure on the part of Legate Publius Pansa and Consul Lucius Aemilius.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-13-2006, 22:51
And although 20,000 seems like a lot of money, how is 5,000 supposed to buy us peace? A mere 5,000 denarii can barely pave the roads of one province.
Servius, 20.000 gold pieces IS a vast amount of money, it is almost equal to the entire income of the Republic ! As Carthage is the loser of this war it would be appropriate for THEM to pay us tribute, instead of the other way around. I think I am already being way too generous to our enemy, and only the forsight of future trade is making me so flexible.
I am not sure that Argeos of Pharsalus did in fact manage to escape. Legate Publius Pansa will have to shed his light on this. If he did escape, rest assured we will track him down. There's only one place left for him to run to.
It is clear that you care nothing for how thin Roman lines are stretched. Stretch them to the breaking point if you will, if that is what you so desire senator Coruncanius, but there will be no pity for you when you stretch them to their breaking point and allow barbarians to storm the Republic because there are not enough legions to protect every ford and valley you would have us take. I would not be suprised if I see you soon trying to pass legislation to have a legion stationed in your backside, Jupiter forbid the barbarians find an entrance to Rome through there!
[SENATE SPEAKER]: Order, Senators, order! This is no way to debate! Servius Aemilius, please apologise to ex-First Consul Tiberius Coruncanius. Your remark about barbarians finding secret passages to Rome was quite uncalled for.
Servius Aemilius, you voted for Motion 9.18. The Consul has not, and does not plan to, take any settlement beyond the Danube river. If you are suggesting that we leave settlements on our side of the river in enemy hands while trying to defend a frontier along the river, as the motion you voted for orders, then I do hope that you will receive more education in the field of military strategy before you are done with your studies.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-14-2006, 00:06
At my request, legate Publius Pansa has agreed to serve as my co-consul during my next term, acting as a replacement for the recently deceased Amulius Coruncanius. We will exchange command whenever one of us gets involved in a battle. The person involved in a battle will then take over as first consul. Our general strategy will be determined together and made public during the interim senate session.
Requests, favours (sotto voice and bribes) can be adressed to either consul.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-14-2006, 01:10
Tribune Marcellus Aemilius and the Legio III Sicilia Aemilia are attacked the Gaul capital of Comata, leaving no survivors and killing the Gallic King Segovax the Cunning. This victory greatly boosts morale in the Legio III Sicilia Aemilia and regains their honour (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1215488&postcount=35). Now all they need is their eagle back and...
The time has finally come !
Legate Augustus Verginius and his Legio II Sabina Quintia are attacking Gergovia, where the stolen legionary eagle is hidden !
I hope all of you make appropriate sacrifes to the Gods, that he will be succesfull in this endavour !
GeneralHankerchief
08-14-2006, 01:21
I wonder if word has reached them that they have lost Comata and are without a King?
Oh well, in a few hours it won't matter to any of them.
I clearly outlined my idea of what a reasonable protection of the Danube would be, I voted for the motion because I do favor a Danube border, but without taking provinces with excessive land on the opposite side.
As for Gergovia, may the Gauls be finally put in their place and the eagle returned to Roman land. My best favor and wishes to Augustus Verginius in this battle.
{Galerius Vatinius}
I must commend senator Marcellus Aemilius for his work at Comata in dealing with Segovax. Just a footnote of the battle ahead to be sure, but a gallic king slain is a Roman victory any day. Ah, I cannot wait for the news to arrive of Verginius' victory at Gergovia! A great feast we shall have when the Gauls have been subjugated to the last man, drinks on me!
Senators,
As you all are aware I have been concentrating on the military hearing which has just ended. As such I have not been aware of what has been occurring in the greater Republic, but I have thankfully completed the reading of the most recent transcripts.
On the matter of Carthage. I was there a number of years ago, the more senior members of the Senate will recall and at that time I called for their destruction whilst they were weak……such calls were voted down and now Carthage is strong and it appears that the Senate is afraid of them!
For shame Senators, for shame indeed. You appear afraid of Carthage and……with good cause! They have united Greater Afrika and can now consider themselves equal to us perhaps, in their own minds that is. However, having lived amongst them for so long perhaps I can aid the Senate in their assumptions as to what they may do now.
Carthage will be flush with victory right now but like us there will be divisions. Some will look to retaking their lost Iberian lands, others will look closer to Cartho herself and to the Islands we liberated from them all those years hence….yet others will seek to consolidate what they have now attained with a view to achieve all the other goals.
Truth is, we can speculate all we wish…..what we need is eyes in Carthage to monitor them – I propose I am sent for such a task….again.
Despite my calls those years ago for war on Carthage, times change. The plain fact is that the Republic is overstretched with conflict at this time and can ill afford war with Carthage….or, in truth, any other neighbour! We should seek a diplomatic avenue with Carthage at this time, though I feel it will be to nought, IF we do succeed we will line our stores with Carthage grain and gold and prepare for war with them….for war will surely come as the sun rises each day.
Perhaps the Iberians will be the target of the Carthaginians…..we can only hope this will be so.
Once we have finished Macedonia completely, safely secured our borders with Thrace, annihilated the Gauls AND found out what Iberia has planned…..THEN and ONLY then can we consider a conflict with Carthage.
Senators, we have too many fronts, too many wars and insufficient funds OR men to fight them. War with Carthage IS inevitable, but not now, not now.
My thoughts go now to Gaul and the hope that the Legio III Eagle can be taken with little loss….and a reminder to the Senators to vote for what punishments are most fitting for its loss.
I will also point out that, as it stands and in my role of Praetor in the Hearing, the punishments will be two-fold. It is possible and therefore acceptable to me to both Banish AND Censure in this case.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-14-2006, 11:58
Senator Decius Curtius,
You are currently deep in the Sahara desert, mapping the holdings of Carthage. I hope you can finish this demanding task before your advancing years overtake you (BTW, grey hair suits you :laugh4:).
(a resounding OOC "D'oh!")
...hmmm...d'ya think? I always thought Black was my colour but I guess Black is very hot here in the desert.
My point really should be made, that I think I'll be best suited back near the main cities of Carthage where I can monitor their troop building abilities and the, now more advanced, infastructure.
Mount Suribachi
08-14-2006, 17:27
I am not sure that Argeos of Pharsalus did in fact manage to escape. Legate Publius Pansa will have to shed his light on this. If he did escape, rest assured we will track him down. There's only one place left for him to run to.
The Macedonian army in Philipi was led by one "Atalos of Larissa". My spies report that Argeos is across the border in Ptolomite territory, no doubt scuttling back to Debeltos with his tail between his legs.
No matter, the Ptolomites will soon finish them off if we don't.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-14-2006, 22:27
I will send a spy to ascertain his fate. If he manages to escape to Debeltos alive, I feel honourbound to pursue him by sea. I will not violate the territory of the Ptolemaic empire in this pursuit. Should we be forced to capture Debeltos I will offer it as a gift to the Ptolemaic empire as it has no use to us, and is strategically indefensible. Perhaps they might even accept an alliance in exchange ?
I will of course need my co-consul's approval for this venture.
I believe you will also need approval of the Senate. Remember what happened when Verginius gave territory to the Germans?
I would, however, rather keep the city. It would be good trading outpost on the Black Sea. It's not very important, so a reasonable city garrison would be enough for defense. If it must be given to sombody, then I'd rather it be given the Seleucid Empire, if they are still at war with Ptolemy. It would give the Ptolemies in Thrace something to do other than attack us.
I would, in general, want to be more friendly to Seleucus than to Ptolemy. Ptolemy is in Egypt, and only has isolated colonies near our lands. If a war with them started, it would be limited. If we got into a war with the Seleucid Empire, especially after taking Byzantium from the Greeks, we would be bordering the entire Empire, and have no way to conclude the war quickly.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-14-2006, 22:41
Actually, as my co-consul pointed out to me, the Greeks are already at war with the Seleucids and the Macedonians are already at war with the Ptolemaic empire.
If we could get the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empire to go to war over the Bosporus cities, this would be to our great advantage.
The question is, should we interfere ? If we take the Greek Cities and give them to the Ptolemaic empire (perhaps in exchange for an alliance ?) they would definitely go to war with the Seleucid empire next. On the other hand, we can just wait untill the Seleucid empire takes the Greek cities themselves and the result would be the same (but we would not have any bargaining schips).
If one of the killers of your son manages to escape alive to Debeltos, I assure you we will hunt him down, enslave the citizens and loot the town, and then give the smoking and crumbling remains to the Ptolemaic Empire as a gift. We cannot possibly defend it for any length of time.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Legio V is en route to rendezvous with the fleet and sail to Byzantion. It would be a simple matter to call on Debeltos first. The aim of the expedition, to my mind, should be to eradicate forever the last vestiges of the Greek and Macedonian kingdoms. At the moment, this will require that we seize Debeltos from Macedon and Byzantion and Nicomedia from Greece.
We should certainly retain hold of Byzantion. Although it is isolated from the rest of the Republic, it is an important settlement of great potential. However, there is less benefit from trying to hold Debeltos and Greek held Nicomedia. Moreover, while Legio V could guard one isolated settlement, it could not credibly guard three.
I suspect Seleucia might refuse the gift of Debeltos on the grounds that it is indefensible; Egypt probably would not. I would not be averse to gifting the settlement to Egypt (and Nicomedia to either Egypt or Seleucia). But I suspect now that we are neighbours, war between us will break out sooner or later. It seems to be the way of the world: we are regarded as threatening upstarts, who must be strangled at birth.
Perhaps gifting Debeltos to Egypt will delay war. But regardless, it should be regarded only as a temporary measure. We have planned to take the Danube as our frontier. Logically, that dictates expelling Egypt from Europe. If war with Egypt comes, we must strike ruthlessly to that end. With Legate Coruncanius and pro-Consul Pansa to the west of Egypt's European provinces, and Legio V soon to be stationed to their east, I believe this could be swiftly accomplished
The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires are already at war. However, I'm afraid the balance of power between those two mighty empires may be in danger of collapsing.
Seleucus is at war not only with Ptolemy but with the Parthians and the Greeks at Byzantium. That is three distinct theaters. As you can see in the World Overview History (https://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b203/TinCow/RTR%20Senate%20PBM/260/map_history_260.jpg) (available at your local library), Seleucus has recently lost ground to both the Greeks and Ptolemy, while he has managed to regain some lands previously lost to the Parthians. What's worse, Ptolemy has conquered large parts of Syria, and is close to Antioch, the capital of the Seleucid Empire. Ptolemy, on the other hand, is only at war with the Seleucid Empire and Macedon, the latter of which is effectively finished.
I believe that the Selecid Empire is in danger of a serious defeat, or even a complete collapse, at the hands of the Ptolemaic Empire. This would seriously upset the balance of power in the east. If the Seleucid Empire collapses, Ptolemy could, in addition to holding Egypt and Thrace, also gain control over large parts of Asia, Syria, and even Persia.
It is for that reason that I believe that we should support the Seleucid Empire in this conflict.
I am not advocating an immediate war with Ptolemy. But, we should certainly not aid him further. If anything, we should aid Seleucus however we can.
We should hold on to Byzantium as it is an important strategic point, and would prevent Ptolemy from gaining another access route to Asia. I doubt that Seleucus would be able to defend, he's even losing ground to the Greeks. Nicomedia we should give back to Seleucus once it is captured from the Greeks, perhaps in exchange for Alliance.
Debeltos is not too important, and if Seleucus does not want it, then it could perhaps be sold to Ptolemy. We could also keep it, without any special defenses, other than a normal city garrison. Ptolemies of Thrace have not attacked it even though it's Macedonian; I don't think they're interested in it. It would be more useful for us, as it can trade with 4 or more other cities on the Black Sea.
In any case, whatever we do, we must not give further aid for Ptolemy, or seek an alliance with him. Instead, we should support his rival, for the reasons outlined above.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-15-2006, 00:00
You neglect to mention that the Seleucid empire has had major succes against the 'orange' faction to their north, which is probably the kingdom of Armenia. Their losses against the Ptolemaic empire are largely offset by this. They have even pushed back against the Ptolemaic empire these last five years. If anything, these two superpowers are still equally matched.
Where two bulls fight, who am I to start waving a red flag ? Let them fight it out, I say, we have more than enough to worry about with our present enemies.
This whole warlike manner I see displayed here today worries me greatly and affects my Roman sensibilities. When have we ever sought war (allright, allright, I did argue for it several times, but for strategic reasons only, honest :laugh4: - In the end, the fools attacked us before we could attack them) ? It is not the Roman way. Fools who attack us will be dealt with severely, but I see no reason to look for war.
This news of war between these great powers does however puts the whole expedition in question. If we were to hold onto the Greek cities, we would very likely get drawn into this war, whether we like it or not.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: First Consul, please do not cancel the planned expedition! Byzantion is a great prize!
I do not see how the existance of war between Egypt and Seleucia makes the expedition any more risky. If anything, I would imagine it makes it less likely that these two powers will wish to start an additional war with us.
At the very least, landings in Debeltos and Byzantion should be able to proceed. Seleucia has no territories in Europe and there is no war there for us to get entangled in.
I propose we destroy the Macedonians first, at Debeltos, afterwards gifting or selling the settlement to Egypt. We then take and hold Byzantion. By that time, the problem of Nicomedia may have resolved itself (with only one settlement, Greece's hold on it must surely be tenuous at best).
Lucius Aemilius, you are sometimes labeled as "ignorant" (trait), and I am most shocked to find that this label has some basis in fact! The 'orange faction' (the Dutch? :laugh4:) are the Parthians, who I did mention, contrary to what you say. Further, from them Seleucus recovered parts of Media, while losing parts of Syria to Ptolemy. Just how does freaking Media compare to Syria? Are these just meaningless names to you, Senator? Syria is the heart of the Seleucid Empire. It is probably the richest region in the empire, and it is where their capital, Antioch, is located. Ptolemy closes in on the Seleucid capital, and there is a real possibility of it being cut off from the eastern parts of Seleucus' empire. Media is a mountainous, rugged, and generally worthless region. How does that compare!?
Furthermore, Lucius Aemilius, I call you a hypocrite! You criticize my 'warlike manner', and yet I have explicited stated that I do not want war with Ptolemy, just aid to his rival in the form of alliance and/or city gifts. You suggested that we give exactly such aid to Ptolemy, and you criticize me? Hypocrite! What's worse, you suggest giving aid to the party that obviously has the upper hand, although your ignorance perhaps prohibits you from seeing that!
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-15-2006, 00:46
Settle down, Tiberius (drat, don't you have ANY bad traits ???),
You are correct about the Parthians, I write and read in haste due to urgent business, and my apologies for my ignorance in this matter.
There can be only one conclusion to us supporting the Seleucid empire against our new neighbours, the Ptolemaic empire, and that is war. They will not take kindly to us openly supporting their enemy and strategically isolating their asian province. If they have any sense, they will attack Byzantion the moment we take it. I would do the same in their place. You are our foremost general, and I cannot believe you do not see these simple strategic facts, and thus I imply that you are pointing, not urging perhaps, but definately pointing towards a path that would definitly lead us into war with the Ptolemaic empire.
Furthermore, the financial worth of the region of Media is negligable, but its strategic value is priceless. The major problem of the Seleucid empire is that it is surrounded by enemies or potential enemies. If they manage to secure their northern border, they will be able to push west with all their strength.
Numbers do not mean much on the battlefield, but the strategic disposition is very interesting here. The Ptolemaic empire is cut in two and has a very long border. The Seleucid empire is beset on all sides, but its only major threat lies to the West. I think the Ptolemaic empire may have a temporary good situation on their hands, but the situation of the Seleucid Empire is improving as well. Frankly, it's a gold piece on its side, it could fall either way. My money, in the long term, is on the Seleucid empire.
OCC: Think Russia in WWII.
Numerius Aureolus, if my co-consul has no objections, I will let the plans continue for now, but I have strong reservations. When I finally have time to survey the situation with a decent map I will make my final decision concerning the Greek cities. Debeltos is a go as far as I am concerned.
Lucius Aemilius, it looks like we'll have to disagree on a long-term prediction. But even you said that the Ptolemies have at least a temporary good situation. For that reason, I think we can agree that at this time, we should at least give no aid to Ptolemy. We have already aided them enough by destoying Macedon, and allowing them to capture, and even keep Thrace.
So, I propose that if Debeltos is given to Ptolemy, money must be asked in return, and that alliance with him should not be seeked and none accepted if offered.
We do not need to give aid to Seleucus immediately, but we should keep an eye on Syria. I implore you to send a spy there. If Antioch falls, I will demand immediate aid to Seleucus.
As for Byzantium, we should take it, and keep it. You should realize that it is an extremely important strategic location, and good for trade. Ptolemy should have little issue with it. If we take Byzantium, we will not be "isolating their Asian province", I don't see how you came to that conclusion. They hold Ionia in Asia, and that is already surrounded on all sides by Seleucid territories, and already isolated from Thrace.
We should also take Nicomedia (from the Greeks) to destroy the Greeks completely. It can then be sold to Seleucus, same as Debeltos would be sold to Ptolemy, no aid either way, then. Else, we can keep it. A single legion in a fort near the Hellespont should be able to defend both as they are very close to each other.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-15-2006, 01:35
I will ponder your suggestions, which I like in principle. Our fleet should not arrive with the Legio V in time to strike at our enemies for the interim sessions. We will let the senate decide on the exact strategy out of a number of proposals.
As for the Asian province, if you are guarding a house surrounded by enemies and it only has two entrances trough whcih it can be supplied, one of which is guarded by a feeble, but vicious dog, which could be put out of the way if really necessary, and that dog is replaced by a rabid rotweiler, whom none dare approach, would you not feel a lot less secure ?
Anyway, you yourself claim Byzantion is an extremely important strategic location, so I do not see why the Egyptians would think otherwise.
In any event, a spy will be dispatched immediately. It will take him quite some time to arrive however.
GeneralHankerchief
08-15-2006, 04:09
I think it is time that we stopped expanding east, gentlemen.
Currently there are two major powers fighting an extended, for the most part inconclusive war. Our relations with both aren't great, but solid considering we share a border and we're not at war. Ptolemy and the Seleucids are two lions fighting to the death. To step in would be suicide. No Senators, we should take Byzantion and cease expansion to the East. Instead we should direct our efforts towards Iberia. They have been a threat to us for long enough.
{Galerius Vatinius}
I concur with senator Aemilius, Byzantion should be our last stop in the east. Iberia is a growing menace, and must be contained. As such, our previous talks about aiding Carthage are still a top priority. Two legions should be left in the eastern frontier, but most other forces should be ready for an Iberian confrontation.
Senator Vatinius,
I believe it will be a matter of if our military acheivements move faster than the time of the next Senate session and voting.
I agree with you, we should stop once we have erradicated finally the Greeks and Macedonians and then concentrate again on the West and Carthage.
We have been successful doing this in the past. We have concentrated on one theatre at a time whilst "holding" on the other, it is an excellent policy.
It seems the Republic is on the verge, where we go from here depends largely on what our neighbours do when they find we are on their doorstep. However, we must attend to our current wars first.
Please Senators, do not loose focus.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-15-2006, 08:52
Let me warn our warlike faction in this house that our nation is completely unprepared for another major war. The war against Macedon has been very costly and we lost the equivalent of three legions in battle. We do not have the forces to expand east and have any chance to hold on to the territory we gain. I still need to raise three legions to fulfill our defensive requirements.
If we end up in war with the Ptolemaic empire and Iberia, we will be very hard pressed indeed.
Please take this into consideration as you plot out future.
Mount Suribachi
08-15-2006, 12:38
Fellow Senators, I have followed this debate with intrest. As my co-consul has said, we have already discussed in private the situation in the East.
However, I fear it is all for naught. I have consulted my astrologers & augers and they gave me bad, nay, grave tidings.
Before our Legions can even reach the 3 cities in question, events will move swifter than we can control them.
Ptolomy will ally with Thrace and declare war on us. Iberia will attack us in the former Gallic towns were we are recovering our lost Eagles. The Seleucids will take Nicodemia from the Greeks.
If this comes to pass, it shall be the greatest test yet for our great Republic. Clearly the Gods are entertained by our struggles, and they wish to be entertained more.
{Galerius Vatinius}
~Galerius comes in a bit tipsy, having been spending some time with his drinking companion, discussing the current state of afairs and all riled up.~
Do not worry yourself too much over what the gods think Consul Pansa. We will invade Mount Olympus and humble Jupiter himself if need be! This Republic will not be thwarted by the nonsensical rabble of astrologers and augers. I besiege you senators, do not waste your time with such things. Instead, lead your men to victory on the strength of your own abilities, govern cities efficiently and raise endless legions. We will prevail in any conflict. We are Romans! Nothing and noone can stop us! Roma Victooorrrr!!!
Mount Suribachi
08-15-2006, 22:33
Conscript Fathers, since the guilty verdict was passed on Publius Laevinius I have felt the need to put this historic event in prose. So I pulled a nice bottle or two of red out of the cellar and sat down. I hope this house will indulge me in reading it.
There was a nobleman in the dock
Who deserved to be thrown from the Tarpean Rock
Publius was his name
Losing Eagles was his game
Whilst his wife sucked another mans...
*Senate Speaker* PUBLIUS PANSA!!!!! I think we've heard quite enough now, thankyou
Servius bursts into laughter, the drunkenness of his fellow senators a bit more than he can bear.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-16-2006, 00:58
Senators,
I want to do honour to legate Augustus Verginius. His bold action at the Second Sack of Gergovia (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1217173&postcount=37) has killed the Gaul defiler of our honour, Drustan of Decetia, and returned the legionary eagle of the Legio III Sicilia Aemilia to us.
https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9519/eaglete6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The Gods will surely forgive us and bless our actions from now on. The eagle wil be resanctified and returned to the Legio III Sicilia Aemilia. Next three weeks of festivities will be held in the city to honour and thank Mars and Jupiter for the return of the sacred eagle. The Aemilia family will hold games and banquets in honour of Augustus Verginius, at my personal expense.
Avicenna
08-16-2006, 04:40
My congratulations to brother Verginius for dealing with this mess for Rome.
{Galerius Vatinius}
Three cheers for Augustus Verginius! The man still does what he does best, and does it better than the rest. A true clinic on how it should be done, I have indeed learned much from the tactical report of the battle. Verginius, a true inspiration for all Romans in a time where such things are supremely valued. Things will surely turn around for the Republic now, with the Eagle returned, the legion active, the Gauls all but destroyed, momentum is on our side.
Senators, I shall see you at the Aemilii celebration for Verginius!
Mount Suribachi
08-16-2006, 11:02
My heartiest congratulations to Augustus Verginius on his outstanding victory. I have never seen a clearer demonstration of the superiority of Roman arms!
And we have our Eagle back to boot!
Debeltos, Byzantion... I care not for these places. We are told that we must pursue and destroy the Greeks and Macedonians once and for all. Yet are not both of those nations surrounded by hostile empires of great size who are also at war against them? They will be gone in due time. We are also told that these are strategic locations and profitable trade centers. Yet their entire strategic significance only comes into play when all territory to their west is in our hands. Isolated as they are, they would be liabilities rather than benefits.
No, Senators, the only reason to take these places is to force a war between us and Alexander's successors. Why is this a war Rome needs to fight? Why should citizens die in the fields against these civilized nations who have done us no harm? I shall not support such an endeavor.
If you wish war, I promise you that one will soon be upon you in the west. Iberia has made clear their intentions many times and they are far more powerful than the Gauls ever were. A single defeat in that theatre resulted in the occupation of a Roman province south of the Alps. Can the same be said of such a defeat in the East? Even after Amulius Coruncanius was killed and his army laid waste, there was no panic in Rome. Yet one defeat at Massilia Ford and many were afraid the Gauls were marching to this very place. We have an enemy at our very doorstep, an uncivilized and fearsome race which does not understand honor and proper civilized politics. If we must engage in yet another war immediately, let us do so there, where our interests are truly at stake.
Still, I would prefer a rest to restore the Legions and build infrastructure to support them. We can accomplish greater conquests after a short rest than we can if we continue to push.
I couldn't have said it better Senator Verginius. These pursuits of Debeltos and Byzantion are illthought, illfated, and far from fruitful. But it seems many among this senate must dream of their next conquest before the current wars even near their end. Byzantion and Debeltos have about as much strategic importance to Rome right now as, say, Colchis or Media. We must finish our current conflicts before wasting our time and Roman lives on some expidition to a very difficult to supply city surrounded by foreign nations.
[NUMERIUS AURELOUS]: Destroying Greece and Macedon would finish off two of our five current conflicts!
As for the others - we have driven Thrace across the Danube and Carthage across the sea. What more do you propose we do?
The remaining conflict is with Gaul, who now have only one settlement as far away and as isolated as Byzantion and Debeltos, but unlike them currently too hard to reach by sea.
Senators, I have to admit to not having consulted the required maps but IF these two Macedon and Greek held regions ARE surrounded by other nations we should leave well alone for now.
Like Carthage with sea between us - there will be other nations between us. By all means continue a naval campaign and cripple them with blockades but a naval invasion?? Nay brothers, it is not prudent just so we can say we have defeated an enemy finally.
Now we have retrieved our honour against the Gauls I would be calling for their complete defeat BUT they are also surrounded and cut off from us so, again, I feel we must leave this matter for now.
What we DO need again is a time of rebuilding our shattered legions. Whilst they are a capable defensive force still, I believe that we should be ready for either Iberia or Carthage to engage with us soon.
I also believe that Thrace will continue to be a problem for us.
So, we must pause now and rebuild our Legions THEN we can be ready to strike back at those who would ravage our lands.
Mount Suribachi
08-16-2006, 18:37
[NUMERIUS AURELOUS]: Destroying Greece and Macedon would finish off two of our five current conflicts!
Indeed it would. But I would also leave us with 3 settlements, isolated, and in an exposed position, surrounded by 2 of the most powerful empires in the known world.
I am of the opinion that we should leave Greece and Macedon to be wiped out in the next few seasons by Ptolomy and Seleucia. I know my co-consul disagrees with this strategy and as he is the senior consul I will follow his lead on this issue - unless the Senate votes otherwise in the upcoming session of course.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-16-2006, 18:46
I have been swayed by my co-consul to leave the Greek settlements to be gobbled up by the Egyptians and Persians. However, the hunt for the last surviving killer of Amulius Coruncanius can not be abandoned without sullying Roman honour. Hence, the expedition to the last Macedonian settlement of Debeltos shall continue, if the senate does not intervene, of course. A motion will be proposed in the upcoming interim session (starting ca 23:00 tonight I figure), in which my strategy will be outlined.
I could support such an expedition under the conditions that it be carried out by a force not large enough to put the Republic at a defensive disadvantage due to its absence, and if the capture of Debeltos is absolutely necessary to bring this hellion to justice, then Debeltos must be given as a gift to the Ptolemies directly following its conquest.
GeneralHankerchief
08-16-2006, 19:30
Why don't we just raid Debeltos? Move in, kill who we need to, sack the place, and abandon it? Roman honor is no longer sullied, we don't have to worry about borders, and plus we get some extra cash in our treasury.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: A raid on Debeltos is certainly possible. No one has proposing trying to keep it.That would only make sense if Egypt declares war on us, allowing us to seize all the balkans south of the Danube.
The great city of Byzantion is a different matter, though, and I would be reluctant to see us surrender it if we do seize it from the Greeks during Legio Vs expedition.
Do not expect the Greeks at Byzantium to be eliminated by the Seleucids any time soon. The Greeks have been gaining ground, and the Seleucids are stretched too thin to be able to stop them. The Greeks at Byzantium are not at war with Ptolemy.
Mount Suribachi
08-16-2006, 21:55
If we give/sell Debeltos, I would rather see it given to Seleucia, in the hope that it might increase friction and lead to war between Seleucia and the Ptolomites. I also like the proposition of Marcellus Aemilius that we raze it to the ground. It would be a fitting end for the treacherous Macedonians.
As for the Greeks Senator Coruncanius, they have but 2 cities left. Their position is weak.
Senator Pansa, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies are already at war. This is a fact you would be aware of if you looked at the discussion on the previous page between me and Consul Aemilius. Another fact you would be aware of is that the Seleucids have been losing a lot of ground; it is their position that is weak in northwestern Asia rather than the Greek one. I have also already mentioned that Debeltos could be given to Seleucus.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-16-2006, 22:40
Conscript fathers,
I bring you an update of my reign.
Finished Interim Report part I (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1208590&postcount=16)
Finished Interim Report part II (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1214641&postcount=17)
This ends the first section of the reign of Lucius Aemilius and Amulius Coruncanius. It will continue as the reign of Lucius Aemilius and Publius Pansa.
Our current situation :
The Legio I Italia Victrix is stationed in Luvavum to the north of the Alps to draw the Thracians away from our provinces.
The Legio II Sabina Quintia is stationed in Gergovia in Gaul.
The Legio III Sicilia Aemilia is stationed in Comata in Gaul.
The Legio IV Gallica is stationed in Philippi.
The Legio V Alaudae is aboard the Eastern Fleet, about to sail trough the Bosporus.
The (revived) Legio VI is stationed at a Danube crossing notheast of Delmatia.
The Field Army I is stationed at a Danube crossing north of Ratiaria.
The Cispine Legion is stationed in a fort north of Jenuensis.
The Sicily Legion is in South Italy marching towards their fort in Sicily.
https://img457.imageshack.us/img457/6271/258autrevenuehi9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The Republic of Rome is at war with the Greek cities, the Republic of Carthage, Gaul, the kingdom of Thrace and the Kingdom of Macedon.
The Kingdom of Macedon is allied with the Germans and the Greek cities and is at war with the Republic of Rome and the Greek cities.
The Seleucid empire is at war with the Ptolemaic empire, the kingdom of Parthia and the Greek cities. They have the kingdom of Armenia as a protectorate.
The Republic of Cathage is at war with the Republic of Rome and Iberia.
The kingdom of Parthia is allied with the Sarmatians and the Greek cities and is at war with the Seleucid empire and the kingdom of Armenia.
The Germans are allied with the kingdom of Macedon and is at war with Iberia and the kingdom of Thrace.
The kingdom of Armenia is a vassal of the Seleucid empire and is at war with the Sarmatians and the kingdom of Parthia.
The kingdom of Thrace is allied with the Sarmatians, Gaul and the Ptolemaic empire and is at war with the Germans and the Republic of Rome.
The Greek cities are allied with the kingdom of Macedon, the kingdom of Parthia, Gaul and the kingdom of Bactria and are at war with the Republic of Rome and the Seleucid empire.
The Sarmatians are allied with the kingdom of Parthia and the kigndom of Thrace and at war with the kingdom of Armenia.
The Iberians are allied with the Ptolemaic empire and at war with the Germans, Gaul and the Republic of Carthage.
The kingdom of Bactria is allied with the Greek cities.
Our strategy is one of consolidation. We will strive not to get involved in any more wars. Yet we want to continue the expedition to Debeltos to destroy the kingdom of Macedon. Once the city is conquered and thoroughly pillaged we will abandon it and offer it to the Seleucid empire, and if they do not want it, the Ptolemaic empire as a gift, as it is strategically indefensible. The Greek cities will be ignored as we do not want to get involved in the war between the Ptolemaic empire and the Seleucid empire and we do not have a blood feud with them, as we do with the Macedonians for the destruction of the Consular Army I and the Legio VI, and the death of co-consul Amulius Coruncanius and his son-in-law tribune Hernennius Genucius. Roman honour will be satisfied !
On all other fronts no new conquests will be undertaken, unless of course we are attacked.
We will strive to raise several new legions and bring the current ones up to strength.
We have already begun to improve the road network in Greece and Italy. Our goal is to extend the Via Appia and create paved roads for better supply to our distant borders.
Attempts to improve the living conditions in our major cities are well underway. The first Aquaduct is now under construction in Roma. These projects, and the cultural integration of our new provinces, will continue.
In many provinces we have begun the cultivation of farmland. This is a very time consuming process, requiring 4.5 years (18 turns), but the returns will be bountiful.
If we look at the diplomatic relations in detail, it is clear that the only useful allies we can gain are the Germans and the Sarmatians. I intend to send envoys to both of them.
EDIT : finishing touches wil be done tomorrow
EDIT 2 : Corrected mistake
[SENATE SPEAKER]: The Senate is now open for the proposing of motions. Recall, they should be presented thus:
Motion 10.x: This House does x, y and z.
Each motion requires two seconders who should explicitly state "I second motion 10.x"
Motions that override earlier motions should explicitly note that feature.
The Senate will be open for debate for a period of 3 days, with the deadline for submitting or seconding motions is Saturday 6pm UK time. There will then be a 24 hour period of voting.
Since the senate needs to approve of any territorial transfer, I propose this motion:
Motion 10.1: This house authorizes the First Consul to sell or give away Debeltos upon its capture to any neutral nation.
On the issue of Byzantium, I believe we should capture it. I don't believe that this will drag us into an immedate war with Ptolemy, assuming we don't get into one anyway. I propose the following:
Motion 10.2: This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.
According to the Consul's latest report, Ptolemy has aligned himself against us by allying with Thrace, our enemy, and Iberia, a potential enemy and rival. Further, he threatens to upset the balance of power in the east, as first argued here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1216283&postcount=545). It is for those two reasons that I believe that we should support his rival, the Seleucid Empire. To that end I propose these motions:
Motion 10.3: This house instructs and authorizes the First Consul to seek an alliance with the Seleucid Empire.
Motion 10.4: If Byzantium is captured, this house instructs the First Consul to finish off the Greeks by taking also Nicomedia, and authorizes him to give Nicomedia back to the Seleucid Empire (from whom it was taken).
Roman honor demands that Argeos of Pharsalus be sent to the underworld, but I see no need, either for honor or strategy, to take or keep any of the remaining Macedonian and Greek cities. As we have already seen with the Gauls, the small territories controlled by these nations will require them to make desperate assaults on their neighbors in an attempt to survive. We are not one of these neighbors. Greece is already directing their attacks east towards the Selucids. Even if they succeed and again become powerful, we have no interest in Asia Minor and their war with Selucia will certainly continue on for decades even if they meet with nothing but victory. The Macedonians will most likely be destroyed by Ptolemy. If they are not, then their borders will expand to meet ours and we can then assault their cities without fear of causing a border dispute with Ptolemy.
In addition, our Legions are depleted and we have many new provinces which must be properly absorbed into the Republic. Senators, I believe that, contrary to the statements of others and the formal states of war in existence, that we are largely at peace for the first time in my memory. Of our five wars, three, Gaul, Macedon and Greece, are against people with only one or two provinces, all of which no longer share borders with us and all of which are likely to be completely destroyed by larger nations very soon. Of the remaining two, Carthage has had no significant conflict to speak of in well over a decade and a great sea divides us from them. This leaves only Thrace as an active threat to our borders, and their warmaking ability has been greatly debilitated by Consul Aemilius himself.
Senators, we may not find ourselves in such a situation again for a very long time. Despite the diplomatic advances of the Iberians, we are bound to find ourselves in conflict with them shortly. I suspect too that our control of the Macedonian homelands will draw us into the civil war being fought over Alexander's empire. Both of these conflicts will require massive levies and extensive campaigning for many years. I do not anticipate living to see another peace once those wars begin. Let us take this opportunity, won for us by Roman arms, to rest the Republic and prepare for the future.
Accordingly, I propose the following:
Motion 10.5: No attack will be made on a Macedonian city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours.
Motion 10.6: No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours.
Motion 10.7: Assassins will be sent out to kill Argeos of Pharsalus and will continue to make attempts on his life until he is dead.
Motion 10.8: No provinces will be conquered except those specified by the previous legislation authorizing expansion to the Danube. This Motion will be void if Rome is attacked by any currently neutral nation.
Motion 10.9: The Consul must attempt return all Legions to full strength by the end of his term and should prioritize the construction of a paved road network in as many provinces as possible.
(Constitutional Amendment) Motion 10.10: If Rome does not share a land border with a hostile nation and no land battle has been fought against that nation in 10 years, the Consul may use RomeSage to lower the difficulty level to Easy only for an instant to allow a ceasefire to be negotiated with this enemy. No other actions of any kind may be taken while the difficulty is lowered and it must be returned to Very Hard immediately after the negotiations are complete.
(Constitutional Amendment revised) Motion 10.11:
(1) Candidates standing for First Consul can specify whether they wish to serve full terms (5 years) or half terms (2.5 years).
(2) No candidate may serve more than 5 years in any given 15 year period.
(3) First Consuls may delegate powers to pro-Consuls provided that they indicate that is their intention during their candidature (the pro-Consul need not be named).
Motion 10.12: If Motion 10.10 passes, the Consul will make peace with Carthage on terms that he deems to be honorable to both sides.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I second the motions 10.1, 10.2 and 10.4 proposed by Tiberius Coruncanius regarding the expedition of Legio V.
My men are eager to end two of our most costly wars - with Macedon and with Greece. And they will end it the only way such wars can end - in the utter destruction of our enemies. We do not propose to give our foes time to recover and regroup.
Moreover, Byzantion is a great city. Senators are no doubt aware of the differences in the settlements that surround us - most cannot even built walls and will never become great cities. But a few are capable of becoming great metropolises, that will bring unparalled wealth and population to our Republic. Byzantion is one of those rare prizes.
Byzantion is also situated at a key strategic point, giving us easy access to the Asia Minor and the steppes. It would be a useful staging post for many possible expeditions that the Senate may wish to endorse in the future.
Senators, we must think where does the future of the Republic lie? We have secured Italy, Greece and Macedon. Where will be our greatest challenge in the future?
Fighting barbarians in Iberia? I think not - I suspect Legate Verginius could cut through them as easily as he did the Gauls.
In the dusty tracks of Africa? No, the Carthaginians lick their wounds and dare not challenge us; they are outclassed.
No, Senators, it is in the East that the true challenge lies. The East, where the successors of Alexander command vast Empires that rival even our expanded Repubic.
Senators, we must prepare for that challenge. Taking Byzantion from Greece is a first step. We have an opportunity to do so almost costlessly now, before Egypt or Seleucia steal the prize from under our noses.
Finally, Senators, think on this. To turn Legio V back now, while they are at sea entering the Bosphorus, and to rely on assassins and our rivals to do their work, is to insult our men.They will think we lack confidence in them. Or more to the point, that we lack confidence in ourselves. The men will not understand. And nor will I.
For all these reasons, I also urge you not to support motions 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8.
I may speak to other motions after further reflection.
GeneralHankerchief
08-17-2006, 02:30
I do believe you have your priorities in the wrong place, Senator Aureolus. You say that we "could cut through the Iberians as easily as we did the Gauls"; is that not the idea, Senator?
Conscript Fathers, you know my stance on attacking the Seleucids or Ptolemy. Imagine all the losses we went through in attacking Greece and Macedon -Pleminius and Coruncanius spring to mind- and multiply that number by five. It would stretch our resources to the point of breaking, especially when there is a fat target much closer to Roma that clearly is afraid of us.
Motion 10.13: Debeltos is to be raided - sacked, then abandoned.
Motion 10.14: This motion authorizes the Consul to start actively conquering Iberian lands. This motion authorises a declaration of war on Iberia.
I also second Motions 10.10, 10.11, and 10.12.
SENATE SPEAKER: Senator Marcellus Aemilius, the scribes have ammended your motion 10.14 to make explicit that it authorises a declaration of war, as is required by convention. If authorising a declaration of war is not your intent, you are free to edit the motion back to its original state but then its execution would have to wait for the Iberians to declare war on us.
Senator Aureolus,
I was not going to support a venture to Byzantium but your words have swayed me, not only because of what that city could become in revenue to the Republic but also as a foothold to stifle the Selucids and Egypt.
I have to agree, we must strike fast and take it from the Greeks before we are beaten there. I have no illusion that this will be an easy task or that we will keep it uncontested for a great length of time but we can hope.
Hereby I support motions:
10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.7, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11 & 10.12
Thus far. For obvious reasons, unlike yourself, I have no compulsion on using Assassins to put Argeos of Pharsalus to death.
I also believe there is an error in the Consuls report where he states “The Kingdom of Macedon is allied with the Germans and the Greek cities and is at war with the Republic of Rome and the Greek cities.”
–Macedon cannot both be at war with AND allied to the Greek City states?
Unfortunately, at this time due to my undertaking in our recent military tribunal I have not had time to review our tactical situation. I may be able to propose fresh motions later but at this time those already proposed are sufficient.
Mount Suribachi
08-17-2006, 11:34
Senator Verginius, might I suggest that you re-word motion 10.8 for it does not take into account Rome being attacked by any other nation. The fortunes of war are variable and fleeting, who knows who will be on our borders and at war with us in 2 years time.
May I also suggest you reword Motion 10.9 to "The Consul must attempt to return all Legions to full strength by the end of his term".
I would not want to be impeached in 2.5 years time if Ptolomy and Iberia declare war on us and our Legions are thus depleted.
Finally, I second Motions 10.1, 10.3, 10.6, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13
Motion 10.14 is sheer madness. I hope for a quiet and battle free couple of years, and so should you senators. We need time to rest and re-group.
{Galerius Vatinius}
Quiet and battle-free years are for women and cripples Senator Pansa. I second Motion 10.14 and volunteer to lead a legion into the barbarian's lands.
Senator Publius Pansa, your words have wisdom I have amended the terms of both motions.
Senator Numerius Aureolus states that wars can only end in one way, with the utter destruction of our enemies. Yet I have not heard either him nor Senator Tiberius Coruncanius call for an attack on the last remaining Gallic settlement. They state that we must finish these wars, but they do not wish to finish all wars, only those where they will lead men in battle and earn personal glory and great wealth. Aureolus and Coruncanius, you will have your wars in due time. The conflict in the east will draw us in inevitably whether we like it or not. Are you so eager for blood that you cannot wait for a few short years to prepare yourselves?
They say that Byzantium is properous and would bring us much wealth. Yet it will also likely bring about war with both Selucia and Ptolemy at the same time. The entire eastern sea will be closed to our merchants and the Republic will suffer from this greatly. There are certainly strategic and financial benefits to Byzantium, but not now and not for us. Perhaps in two and half years the situation will have changed, but for now there is one thing that is absolutely clear:
Taking Byzantium, Debeltos and Nicomedia will mean war with Ptolemy or Seleucia and likely both! No man can say we are ready for such a war and retain respect in this house. Yet these two aggitate for actions which will surely provoke it and they receive support.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I do not see how Legio V's expedition will provoke war with Seleucia, so long as we do not try to hold Nicomedia. There would be no land border with Seleucia.
War with Egypt is likely, but I believe that is due to our existing land border with her, not because of the expedition. Taking and holding Byzantion will not make war any more likely and will strengthen our position should war break out.
Moreover, we are ready for a war with Egypt. We have three field armies able to strike her European possessions and a strong fleet that can guard our coasts after she is expelled from Europe. Indeed, I believe that if war happens quickly with Egypt, it will make the inevitable contest with Iberia go better. We will be able to secure the East, anchoring our Danube frontier at Byzantion, and only have to guard it against a few Thracian raiders.
The last Gallic province is a different matter, because it cannot be reached without transgressing on the land of our neighbour. Furthermore, the news that Iberia is now at war with Gaul makes any discussion of the fate of that settlement in this house irrelevant.
Yet Macedonia is at war with Ptolemy and Greece is at war with Seleucia and you clearly do not think discussion of their holdings is irrelevant. You make inconsistent choices Aureolus. You do not wish to anger the Iberians, yet you have no qualms about potentially angering the two eastern powers. What have those nations done to so enrage you?
GeneralHankerchief
08-17-2006, 15:09
Iberia will finish up the idiotic Gauls, then fix their attention on us. Surely the 506 denarii was only to buy time. I do not want to be caught as far away as Alexandria when we will be fighting in the Alps.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, I do not wish to transgress the lands of our neighbours - that makes it possible for us to finish off Macedon and Greece, but not Gaul. There is no inconsistency there.
As for letting Seleucia and Egypt defeat our enemies, as of late, they have made little progress there. I believe Greece is taking the offensive against Seleucia in Asia Minor and its city of Byzantion is protected by sea from her enemy. The Macedonian general was able to retreat to Debeltos unmolested through supposedly hostile Egyptian lands. By contrast, I believe a powerful Iberia will make short work of the last pitiful Gallish outpost.
But the key issue to my mind is Byzantion. That is a prized fruit ready for the taking - we should not leave it to fall to Seleucia or Egypt. If the last Gaulish settlement were a great city like Byzantion, rather than some wretched village you have already enslaved and plundered, Senator Verginius, I might think differently.
Moreover, Byzantion has a key strategic location not unlike that of Massilia in the west in days gone past. It is a natural anchor to our Republic. By contrast, the last Gallic settlement could be no more than a stepping stone in a wider contest with Iberia for Gaul.
{Galerius Vatinius}
Noone is going to Alexandria Marcellus. The aims of taking Byzantion and not moving further into potential enemy territory have been made clear. There is all but one legion tasked with taking it, we won't be caught off guard as long as enough troops stay where they need to. Senator Aureolus makes excellent points as to our border situation and possible conflicts of interest with the Ptolemies and Seleucids, namely that we risk nothing more than we already have by taking Byzantion, and instead have something great to gain with its capture.
I find myself constantly changing my views on this subject of Byzantion. Whilst I agree that such a region will bring the Republic much profit I also believe taking it and holding it will present us in direct opposition to the two powers of the East.
The prospect of War with Seleucia AND Ptolemy feels me with dread at this time, we could not hope to stand against these powers when surrounded.
The issue of Iberia and Gaul is much firmer in my mind. Iberia WILL finish Gaul AND they will also turn against us once they have secured that last Gallic settlement.
The Co-Consuls must ensure we are prepared for this.
IF, it is decided to take Byzantion then the Co-Consuls must be prepared for a huge war! I believe the main issue is that such a war is far from certain…..we could take Byzantion and no provoke either into a response, or we could just provoke one OR both.
If we can be sure we have secured our Eastern boarders on the former Macedonian and Greek City regions then I would be inclined to err on the side of us taking Byzantion and seeing what happens.
The main drawback is that we not only stand to loose which ever Legion ventures forth but have the prospect of our Eastern legions being decimated in a long term struggle.
IF, we are confident that our Legions in the East……..as they are NOW……can resist such a situation, IF, the Senate is happy for us to endanger a whole Legion on such an expedition…..remember we did take such a risk when landing in Illyria as I recall……….THEN, I will support such a venture.
If the Co-Consuls and the Tribunes are not so confident then I am inclined to say “nay” to such a proposal in the Vote.
Senator Aureolus if you are so sure that Greece will continue to survive and that their dominion over Byzantium will hold, then surely we can take the city from them in two years time when we are properly prepared for a full war. The same stands true of Debeltos. Clearly you believe that Ptolemy and Selucia will not destroy our enemies, so how does a short delay to prepare for a potentially massive war injure us?
Senator Vatinius, we most certainly do risk more. Taking Byzantium will give us a border with Selucia, something we would not otherwise have. Seleucia is in a life-or-death struggle with Ptolemy. Do you really think that they will be glad that we have blocked the main access route to their enemy's holdings in the West?
I am not advocating pacifism by any means. I simply think that we should take advantage of this unprecedented decrease in hostilities to prepare the Republic for the trying times ahead.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, Legio V is already embarked and about to sail through the Bosphorous. It can destroy the Macedonians at Debeltos, dispose of the settlement and then conquer Byzantion. I do not see what we have to gain from ordering the ships back to port and telling them to wait for the next First Consul (you, perhaps, Senator Verginius?).
We have the manpower to do the job. Legio V can handle itself. Furthermore, our forces are concentrated in what was Macedonia - they are more than sufficient to win a war with Egypt in Europe if she starts one.
Letting the expedition complete its mission would not prevent us preparing ourselves for renewed struggles. Indeed, getting it over with may well free up some of our armies there for duties elsewhere. Furthermore, the income from Byzantion would not go amiss.
Mount Suribachi
08-17-2006, 16:38
Augustus Verginius speaks with wisdom. Taking Byzantion gives Ptolomy and Seleucia an isolated Roman city between them. One, or both, of them will be unable to resist attacking it.
And what if Carthage decides to renew hostilities now that Numidia are no more? What if Iberia decides to turn her armies against us. We MUST consolidate, re-group and re-equip. We cannot afford any actions that would cause more wars, as that would undo all the blood and treasure that has been spent to finish the 2 wars that are now drawing to a conclusion.
If we are to take Byzantion, truth be known, I would rather launch a surprise attack on the Ptolomite holdings in Europe and do away with them in one fell swoop. Rather that than wait for them to declare war on us and catch us on the hop.
Numerius Aureolus, you have swayed my mind. I agree with you that taking Byzantion is key at this moment. Therefore I second Motions 10.2 and 10.4
I also second Motion 10.5
Of all the nations currently bordering us, Ptolemy is the one we have the least to worry about. Let's not forget that he's in Egypt. They don't have much in Thrace, I reckon we could kick them out in one season if a war started. As far as the threat to us is concerned, Ptolemy cannot be compared to Iberia or the Seleucid Empire. He can, at best, be compared with Carthage, but is even further away, and we haven't seen his fleet perform significant operations in the Aegean.
A war with Ptolemy would not involve a large military campaign. Our war with Carthage didn't involve an invasion of Africa, so why do some apparently assume that we'd suddenly have to invade Egypt if a war with Ptolemy started? In fact, how about we stop being cowards, stop being scared of that bastard in Alexandria, and do what's best for the Republic? I propose:
Motion 10.15: In order to secure the Republic's eastern border, this house instructs the First Consul to completely expel the forces of Ptolemy from Thrace, and to capture Byzantium. This motion authorizes a declaration of war on the Ptolemaic Empire.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-17-2006, 21:29
Conscript fathers,
It grieves me to see this irrational lust for war in the senate. What has come over you that has afflicted you all with bloodlust ? I sometimes feel like I am surrounded by the beserking Illyrians again, instead of optimates.
Nevertheless, I will say this once more.
The state is not ready for another war !
A massive conflict with Iberia and/or the Ptolemaic empire would be a disaster. Even if our armies in the East will be victorious, which I think they will, they can barely be resupplied from Rome. Any serious defeat could not be replaced in less than a year. The same goes for the West. The Iberians can bring forth massive amounts of troops, which will wither away our armies in Gaul due to sheer attrition no matter how brilliant they fight. It is not for nothing I send those legions all the troops I could spare already !
We do not have the troops to garrision any cities we might conquer. We would be forced to garrison them with very expensive mercenaries, which would be a terrible drain on our finances, and which will stunt our development. The first year and a half it was a struggle to build anything, as our powerful armies had conquered so much territory it was impossible to guard all of it without the heavy use of mercenaries. This made it virtually impossible to construct any large projects. Then the need for new legions stalled the recruitement of auxilia forces to replace the mercenary garrisons. There is virtually no roman or italian soldier in all of Greece, as they are all needed at the border, and we are still short of men ! I find this deplorable. All these cities should be garrisoned by local or italian auxilia troops. The very expensive mercenaries are of better use at our borders.
Furthermore, two legions, the I and the IV are pretty beat up and need reinforcements quickly. Soon we will have three Field Armies and they are now only at legion strength or less.
We also need another legion stationed in Southern Italy, one in Southern Greece, one near Aquileia and one in Macedonia. It takes quite a lot of money and time to recruit and train even a single legion. They don't grow on trees, you know !
When our troops are brought up to strength and when the road network is finished, we might be able to fight a protracted war with one of these powers without undue suffering to our continuing development. Fighting on two fronts will strain us even then. You all seem to forget that the Ptolemaic empire and the Iberians are allies now, if we get involved with a war with one of them we will be at war with both ! We must play for time and rebuild !
This clamoring for war is madness, senators ! Come to your senses !
I second motions..
10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, and 10.12
I will not sit through these nonsense, irresponsible mentions of going to war unprovoked with Iberia, who has just payed us a tiny sum for passage of one of their wargroups through our lands, nor will I support any motion to capture isolated cities far from the Roman heartlands, Byzantion or not, it is an irresponsible, ill thought idea that could only end in further disaster for Rome. If our enemies thought in such ways we could destroy them all in a matter of days, this idea of taking Byzantion is akin to the Gauls suddenly deciding that taking Jenuensis and bypassing Masillia was somehow in their best interests. This was clearly proven incorrect. Just because Byzantion is lucrative, doesn't make invading it intelligent. And as for Debeltos..it's too much of a risk, I have no doubt in Roman ability to actually take Debeltos, but after the recent turn of events between Iberia, Thrace and the Ptolemies, I have no faith in Ptolemaic ability to restrain themselves from attacking an isolated legion. And I will not support outright war with the Ptolemies, doing so would draw Iberia to attack our western frontier before there is any news of Carthaginian entanglement or success with them, and this could mean too large of an Iberian warhorde at our Alpine doorstep. Not only this, but a distracted Ptolemy could give the Seleucids a strong shot at Egypt...and an empire in the east that holds both Egypt AND Babylonia, is not something I think Rome could contend with at this time. The amount of money they would net from these two breadbaskets of the ancient world combined would be far more than we could bear.
As things stand I feel that we have seriously spread the armies of the Republic beyond their limits, and propose a new system to reform the deployment of legions and defensive fortifications to Rome's borders and her enemies territories.
I propose Motion 10.16 - The Republic must re-think it's manner of deployment for Rome's legions and other defensive forces and come up with a suitable plan to better ensure the security of our growing nation's borders.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-17-2006, 22:21
Senators,
I have send you some engravings to give you a more graphic view of our situation.
The Western Border
https://img378.imageshack.us/img378/3141/gaulwl2.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The Northern Border
https://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2147/thraceaq3.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The Eastern Border
https://img378.imageshack.us/img378/3329/asiafe0.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The world as we know it
https://img378.imageshack.us/img378/8652/worldrf7.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The relative military strength
https://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9434/militaryaq2.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
The number of territories
https://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9076/territorybf6.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
While these figures might look promising, remember that most of the extra troops we seem to have are actually garrison troops and thus unusable for war. You see that most of these nations can put strong forces on the battlefield. This goes even for the smaller nations, as they have fewer territories to garrison.
The Republic of Carthage, the Seleucid empire and the Ptolemaic empire probably have equal or more troops in the field than we do. The Iberians probably slightly less.
Savegame : http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/258-aut-end.zip
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I believe we have discussed Legio Vs expedition in some detail and perhaps should also attend to some of the other motions.
Senator Verginius, I was wondering whether you would consider ammending Motion 10.11 so that candidates who want to stand for 5 years can still do so? When the issue was discussed outside of this house, it was felt that for some, five years was not be too arduous. To impose an election at the mid-term in such a case may be a unwarranted distraction. Five years gives more time to achieve something substantial and some candidates may feel they are better able to serve in a concentrated period of time, rather than intermittently.
I suggest the following revision:
(Constitutional Amendment revised) Motion 10.11:
(1) Candidates standing for First Consul can specify whether they wish to serve full terms (5 years) or half terms (2.5 years).
(2) No candidate may serve more than 5 years in any given 15 year period.
(3) First Consuls may delegate powers to pro-Consuls provided that they indicate that is their intention during their candidature (the pro-Consul need not be named).
Note that clause 3, while perhaps appearing unorthodox, is partly to legitimise the current arrangement after the untimely death of Amulius Coruncanius.
The intention of the revised ammendment is to provide the greatest flexibility to candidates for First Consul, in the hope of attracting the widest possible field.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-17-2006, 22:59
The scribes have finished checking the reports and documentation of the consuls and report their work is done. Only minor improvements were found.
OCC : That means everything is up to date and some small mistakes have been corrected.
StoneCold
08-17-2006, 23:05
How soon can we get a diplomat to the Sarmatians?
If we could get one to them about the same time as when the forces of Senator NUMERIUS AUREOLUS arrive in Debeltos, we could use this conquered province as a gift to them, to cement an Alliance with them. I have misgiving in giving them to either the Plotemies, which will increase their holdings in Europe, or the Selucides, which will also give them a foothold in Europe which might sour our relationship with them in the near future.
If not, I would second it to be raided and abandoned. Let the rebels have it, we will just secure our borders at Ratiaria and Philippi against the off chance of the Plotemies turning on us.
Senator Aureolus, I will agree to your changes to Motion 10.11, assuming that under section (2) you meant 5 years rather than 5 terms, as the language you have written could allow for a permanent dictatorship!
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-17-2006, 23:23
It seems we have to keep an eye on this Numerius Aureolus...
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-17-2006, 23:43
How soon can we get a diplomat to the Sarmatians?
If we could get one to them about the same time as when the forces of Senator NUMERIUS AUREOLUS arrive in Debeltos, we could use this conquered province as a gift to them, to cement an Alliance with them. I have misgiving in giving them to either the Plotemies, which will increase their holdings in Europe, or the Selucides, which will also give them a foothold in Europe which might sour our relationship with them in the near future.
If not, I would second it to be raided and abandoned. Let the rebels have it, we will just secure our borders at Ratiaria and Philippi against the off chance of the Plotemies turning on us.
Interesting ideas, of which my co-consul might take note. I do not think we can get a diplomat there fast enough, except one of our 'undiplomatic' ones. If we abandon the city the Ptolemaic empire might not be able to resist and take it before it rebels, and then we're at war. Troublesome...
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I share the First Consul's misgivings about simply abandoning Debeltos. I doubt any faction other than Egypt would accept it as a gift, as it would be indefensible for them. In my opinion, it is better to peacefully give it to Egypt, a possible future enemy, than to abandon it and tempt Egypt to seize it and become our enemy now.
Senators, we have been in this situation before - when Augustus Verginius gifted some abandoned Gallic cities to the Germans. This caused uproar at the time, but in hindsight was a prudent move.
I am not overly concerned about gifting Debeltos to Egypt on the grounds that she may become our enemy. The settlement is small and unwalled. Garrisoning it and rebuilding it will if anything drain her resources.
And if war does break out, Legio V will be back soon enough to thank the Egyptians for looking after it for us.
SENATE SPEAKER: The scribes have posted at list of the motions proposed and their seconders on the Senate doors:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1171910&postcount=1
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I second Motions 10.8 and 10.9
Senators, we must look to what is best for us, and that means taking Byzantium. If Ptolemy has a problem with our priorities, they can tell us and meet us in battle. As it is, we have no right to declare war on them. Let them come to us I say. Let it never be said that Romans are war-mongers
You would say that the Romans are not war-mongers but at the same time would advocate taking a settlement far from our lands? Not only that but isolating a Roman legion in the process between two very large potential enemies, and expecting neither of them to take action against us? You are condemning a legion to an indefensable, unsupplyable outpost, provoking an attack in the process, and saying you are not a warmonger? Wolves may have learned to hide in sheeps clothing senator, but the shephard can tell his flock from his foe. Taking Byzantion is not a good idea, nor is it in the Republic's current best interest.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 01:24
Considering Debeltos, I am in agreement with Numerius Aureolus that it is best to give the smoking heaps to the Egyptians.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Before embarking with Legio V, I had a chance to talk with many sailors and travellers, which allowed me to form a picture of the overall situation of the Republic. I wish to make a few observations based upon that review. I apologise if these remarks appear presumptious to our Consuls, who may well have considered them already, but they are offered constructively in case some details are overlooked.
Firstly, I was impressed to hear of the number of mercenaries in our employ, especially in the east. However, I would caution the First Consul against a general policy of disbanding them and replacing them with auxiliaries on the grounds of cost. Mercenaries are very expensive to recruit, but their upkeep is no higher than locally trained men. Once we have paid the intial high cost of recruiting mercenaries, there need be no presumption that we should dismiss them on the grounds of cost.
For example, my informants reported a unit of 120 Illyrian spearmen costing us 101 gold per season whereas 80 Italian spearmen cost us 194. Functionally, the two units are similar and so it would seem much more cost effective to retain the Illyrian spearmen rather than disband them and hire Italian auxiliaries to replace them.
Second, I received word of a renowned Thracian general by the name of Arapeithes the Bloody-handed with a Consular-sized army near Samisegetusa. His location would seem to threaten General Tiberius Coruncanius (who incidentally I congratulate on his promotion to Praetor), defending a ford north of Ratiaria with an under-strength Praetorian army. I would urge that a spy be sent to shadow Arapeithes so that his movements do not surprise us and also that General Coruncanius be reinforced. At present, he does not even have any slingers - which would be a missed opportunity if he is called upon to defend the ford.
Third, I noticed that an Upper House Senator, Titus Vatinius, has a Praetorian army on the frontline with Thrace, north of Delmatia. I would suggest that the new Lower House Senator, Quintus Libo, be sent to replace him immediately. We do not want a repeat of the shame of Massilia ford. It might also be wise to move this force closer to Ratiaria in case Arapeithes does threaten there.
Finally, I would urge that the three churigeons currently in Rome be sent to our frontline commanders immediately. General Coruncanius, Tribune Libo and myself all lack churigeons - surely the most valuable of all ancillaries. Manius the mad, Publius Laevinius or even a student might make suitable couriers. I fear the absence of a churigeon among Legio V may double the blood price of its current expedition. In fact, I believe this last point is sufficiently important to warrant a motion:
Motion 10.17 All frontline commanders should be provided with churigeons as soon as possible.
Senators, please may I have two seconders for this surely uncontroversial motion? Do not let our brave veterans bleed to death on the battlefields for want of proper care.
GeneralHankerchief
08-18-2006, 02:25
I too request a churigeon. Personally, I think they should automatically be transferred along with standards of legions.
Edit: Motion 10.17 is seconded.
I second Motion 10.17. The Field Army also lacks one.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Tribune Aemilius, forgive me for not including you in my list of frontline commanders without churigeons. Your need is indeed among the most pressing, but also the easiest met given your proximity to Rome. Perhaps young Servius Aemilius could bring one from Rome during a visit?
Churigeons are easy enough to come by in academies (ooc: 15% chance)- I believe we have acquired two in Rome over the last few seasons. One of the strongest arguments for keeping students in their studies is so that they can attract such fine minds to their services.
StoneCold
08-18-2006, 09:02
Are the Iberians in our land moving, ravaging the countryside or just camping there at the moment, if I may ask?
I am asking this because if they are ravaging the countryside, it is as good as a declaration of war on us. If they are camping (probably planning on double crossing us in the near furture once they preceive a weakness) or leaving, we could give them the benefit of the doubt there.
Divinus Arma
08-18-2006, 09:24
Dearest Senators of this humble and honorable court, Why do we trifle with such simple matters as the passing on of surgeons to our generals? Is it not apparent to all that the army on campaign has the greatest need? Is it not apparent to all that any such need be granted without bothering this noble and glorious representation of Rome's people?
Our fine Consuls have been elected to do their duty for Rome. It is a waste that these honorable servants of the people be bothered with such trivial matters as the assignment of assistants.
I make a motion to debate the rewards of allowing consuls to take charge of any such assistant as they deem necessary for the conduct of military operations.
These assistants should only be those that have effect on the campaign or battle. Personal assistants that aid in private instruction, managerial duties, and, erm, "influential" support or pleasure would remain under the charge of the currently retaining Senator unless otherwise approved by said retaining Senator.
Have you arguments against this proposal? Would any of you stand against the greater good for the glory of Rome? If so, let us hear your voice! Let it be recorded for the ages that a senator of the people stands not for Rome and her people for their own ambitions! Stand with our Consuls or stand against the elected will of the Republic!
I trust that none within this noble body has objections, so let us take a vote and let it be made law!
Motion 10.17 is also Seconded by myself, although I would have thought the Consuls would perform this task without having to wait for a formal instruction from the Senate.
I have been listening hard again to the debate here and I have my mind firmly set now.
We should take and hold Byzantion. A war with the Ptolomites and Seleucia is very real, weather we do this or not! Personally, I would rather their attentions were focused on a City with high and strong walls…….like Byzantion, rather than our weaker holdings to their West.
Also, we must re-enforce our West in preparation for an impending Iberian assault. I believe that we should NOT pre-empt this however so, my vision for the next segment of the Co-Consulship is to seize Byzantion and perhaps level Debeltos and gifting it to Egypt but to hold back on our Western front whilst consolidating and re-building our legions and infrastructure.
[SENATE SPEAKER]: Senator Eclectic, I suggest formalising your motions as:
Motion 10.18 (Constitutional Ammendment): Consuls may transfer any ancillaries to frontline commanders that they deem necessary for the conduct of military operations. Where commanders have a full complement of ancillaries but could benefit from additional combat-related ones, Consuls are empowered to transfer non combat-related ancillaries away from commanders to Upper House generals.
Mount Suribachi
08-18-2006, 12:54
How soon can we get a diplomat to the Sarmatians?
If we could get one to them about the same time as when the forces of Senator NUMERIUS AUREOLUS arrive in Debeltos, we could use this conquered province as a gift to them, to cement an Alliance with them. I have misgiving in giving them to either the Plotemies, which will increase their holdings in Europe, or the Selucides, which will also give them a foothold in Europe which might sour our relationship with them in the near future.
Senator, long years of experience has shown us that the peoples of this world are proud and stiff-necked. Not one has been willing to ally themselves with us. Instead they all plot and scheme and attack us! To their ruin I might add! I doubt that the Sarmatians would be any different. (OOC: getting an alliance on VH is nigh on impossible)
As to your questions about the Iberians, their army was camped outside the city when it belonged to their former allies, the Gauls. When Senator Augustus Verginius assaulted the city, he clevery attacked at night, thus preventing the Iberians from coming to the aid of their allies, thus preventing war with them, but leaving their army trapped on what was now Roman territory. The Iberian army should be heading back to their own lands soon. If they do not, I imagine they will attack us shortly.
Senator Numerius Aureolus, in regard to your point about mercenaries. We have so many of them for the simple fact that we can only recruit troops in the Italian peninsula, and that is a long way for what few reinforcements we have to travel. I hope that before the end of my consulship that we will be able to recruit auxilia in some of our Greek cities. Several of our generals, myself included, like to use the mercenaries we recruit in the front line were they do most of our dying whilst our legionaries flank and do most of the killing. Mercenaries are expendable, Roman Citizens are not.
As for the situation with Quintus Libo, I suggest that you send me a letter when I take up my co-consulship; there will be much on my mind then and I could do with a reminder.
Finally, I wish to announce to the house that I am to take the name Publius Pansa Verginius in honour of the father who adopted me, Augustus the Orator.
Senator, motion 10.18 is foolish and unneccessary, you would be granting the power to take personal servants from senators without their permission by the consul? What is to prevent him from going further and taking our land, taking our positions as senators, making himself emperor? While I have no doubt in my mind that our current consuls would do no such thing, we must consider the possibility of corruption among future, lesser men. The generations are not always kind to political men's morales.
On another note. I would be pleased to allow the usage of my churigeon by our soldiers on the frontline, the skills of such men are needed there most...but I will not send my personal assets to a cause I do not believe in. In that respect, I will gladly travel to Gergovia and supply Legio III with my personal churigeon, but I will not send my servants to deal with those in the east who would have us launch unneccessary attacks on isolated settlements and put good Roman lives at risk, or who would have us go to an ill thought war with the Ptolemies who have as of yet shown us no aggression.
While I second motion 10.17, I refuse to do so if it involves sending MY personal servants to a cause I do NOT believe in...
That said, I will make my way to Gergovia and supply Legio III with my churigeon as soon as possible.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 13:18
Firstly, I was impressed to hear of the number of mercenaries in our employ, especially in the east. However, I would caution the First Consul against a general policy of disbanding them and replacing them with auxiliaries on the grounds of cost.
I never said we would disband them, which would be a ridiculous idea, I said we would replace them and send the mercenaries to the front.
Your other points are well taken and will in all probability be acted upon by us.
I am amused to see your long list of shortages and deficiencies in our armies, while on the other hand proclaiming we are ready for a global war. I hope you see the irony in your own words here.
I would ask you to retract motion 10.18. This is a very bad idea. Can you see me transplating a drunken uncle to an upper house avater because it suits me at the moment ? The senator in question would be enraged, and rightly so. Furthermore, we would quickly get a bunch of 'clone' generals with no distinguishing marks.
OOC : Churigeons are for inept commanders :laugh4: Just kidding, just kidding !
Augustus Sempronius,
The Iberians are indeed despoiling the countryside, but I am willing to overlook it for now. Anything to prevent another war for which we are not ready.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 13:40
I would also ask Numerius Aureolus to retract Motion 10.17, as this is redundant as this is already covered by the base rules.
Members of the Senate, noble Fathers of the Republic,
Allow myself to be introduced to you for the first time. I am proud to present myself, Manius Coruncanius, to the Senate in my formative years at the Acadamies in Roma.
As you know, as part of my final studies I am permitted to join you in the Senate and add to the Republics governmental system.
Whilst I will accept that I am young and I hope you will excuse any mistakes I may make due to my youth. However, this is an excellent grounding for my future defending our glorious Republic in military service.
Mercenaries; Ha! they choose to take coin in exchange for killing, we should always use them to take the brunt of casualties where ever our armies are fighting, tis only correct is it not?
Our loyal Romano troops fight and die because of their own honour and love of the Republic....those that choose to fight for mere profit should be used as attack dogs!
I would like it noted that I have a churigeon currently in my employ and I am willing to allow his release to a fighting unit in the understanding that he is returned to me when I will require him, when I take a commission in the legions.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: It is not my intention to get into a confrontation with our First Consul, so I must choose my words with care.
On the matter of the mercenaries, I apologise for misinterpreting the First Consuls remarks. I am glad the mercenaries are not to be disbanded as that would indeed be madness. I agree some mercenaries are fine fighters and should be transferred to the front. However, others might better serve as garrisons. An example may be the Illyrian spearmen I mentioned before: large low-cost companies of rather low grade soldiers are most suitable for maintaining order and dealing with bandits. Moreover, as a generalisation, mercenaries are harder and more expensive to replace than auxiliaries. Consequently, as a general policy, it would seem to be more prudent to keep them safe in garrison duty and send the auxiliaries to the front.
On the matter of "global war" and the deficiencies of our armies, I have neither argued for the former nor asserted the latter. The only military actions I have argued for are limited expeditions to dispatch two of our dying foes, the Macedonians and the Greeks. On the state of our armies, I said I was impressed by the number of mercenaries we have. We have more inner reserves than I had expected - Manius the mad has a full Praetorian army north of Jenuensis, for example.
On motion 10.17, it is true that the Consuls are authorised to transfer churigeons under the constitution and do not require a motion to do so. However, the motion arose when I discovered there were three churigeons in Rome and four armies on the frontline without churigeons. The motion does not seek to grant the Consuls powers they already have. Instead, it is designed to prod them to use those powers a little more expeditiously. I understand Consuls may have different opinions about the extent to which they wish to micromanage such matters and indeed the extent to which they wish to interfere with the personal arrangements of other Senators. However, motion 10.17 arises because veterans bleeding to death unnecessarily will not concern themselves with such proprieties.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 14:34
Numerius Aureolus,
So you would send our cheap, low quality, police forces to fight in the front line and leave the elite, expensive to maintain, mercenary units to guard the towns ???
I think I am misunderstanding your remarks. I was planning to replace the expensive to maintain mercenaries guarding towns with auxialia troops. As Illyrian spearmen are auxilia troops that can be recruited in Illyria, they would not be send to the front, but would be send to replace expensive mercenary units guarding Illyrian towns. As most Greek cities can not recruit Auxilia forces, they should be guarded by cheap Italian Auxilia. Then again, I am a perfectionist and my co-consul might take a more disorderly and flexible approach.
I shall not argue about your past remarks in the senate, trusting the senators to make up their own mind about them.
I will not send a student on a four-year journey to bring a chirurgeon to a general. They are supposed to pick up anciliiaries in Rome in my opinion. Normally I would send one along with a general heading in that direction, but it so happened none have been in Rome that were heading in that direction. Then again, this my way of governing, and perhaps my co-consul may see things a little differently.
OCC : I can't seriously believe chirurgeons are a 'critical' asset on battle difficulty medium. Perhaps I am being presumptious here, but really ?
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: First Consul, I fear we are both quite incapable of understanding each other on the matter of mercenaries. We should let the matter rest, although in the mutual fog of our exchange it is quite possible we are in complete agreement.
On the matter of sending students with churigeons to generals, it would not take four years. Moreover, some fresh air, with a chance to see something of the world, might do the young fellows good. Of course it need not be students if there are other Upper House members available. But I would not delay sending doctors to save lives because a student is not permitted to skip class!
You say that you would not send the students, but the point of motion 10.17 is to mandate you to do so if there is no faster way, whether you would freely choose to or not. It seems that the wording was not clear enough, so I will revise the motion to be more explicit:
revised Motion 10.17 The three churigeons in Rome are to be sent without delay to Marcellus Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius and Quintus Libo. Any new churigeons spawned are to be sent to other Lower House members with frontline commands, starting with Numerius Aureolus.
[ooc: in my experience, you can sometimes lose a whole cohort and get it all back with churigeon. On average, I would guess they halve your losses. What can I say, I just can't bear to lose my boys?! Especially if they are Samartian cavalry...]
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 15:10
To show I wil make no issue of this, I will make my own chirurgeon available to Numerius Aureolus, whether he retracts Motion 10.17 or not.
I must however state that I think you are trying to take over the role of the first consul by submitting a motion that constrains his freedom to act too much. I once again advise him to retract this motion and Motion 10.18.
OCC: They do not halve your losses, it's much less.
GeneralHankerchief
08-18-2006, 15:20
This is not about limiting the Consul's power, father. It is about saving the lives of our brave soldiers who go to war and are wounded in battle. These men, these churigeons, they are utterly wasted spending time with the students in Roma! Not when there is a frontier to defend and there are losses to be reduced! I think you have taken your churigeon for granted, father.
[SENATE SPEAKER]: Just for clarification, I suggested Motion 10.18 as a formalisation of the new Senator Eclectic's own motion, which did not follow our formal conventions. Unless our new member dissents, it will be recorded as a motion proposed by him, not Numerius Aureolus.
I stand with Servius Aemilius, against Motion 10.18. I understand the desire to aid the Republic in any way possible, but it does not serve the Roman people to open the door to tyrrany. Much good could come from such a Motion, but much evil as well. In my own case, I have a certain Gallic slave woman that I took for myself when I enslaved Gergovia many years ago. I have grown particularly fond of her and her... services... which she does so well that I often forget she is a Gaul. It would be a grave crime to steal this property away from me and her transfer to another would be of absolutely no benefit to the Republic, yet that is exactly what this motion would allow. Under Motion 10.18, a Consul could take my slave woman for himself simply because he likes the way she looks, and I would be brought before a court if I opposed him! It was under circumstances very similar to this that the reign of Tarquinius Superbus was ended.
It is true that a good Consul would not stoop to such low levels, but we should not depend on the propriety of future leaders whose names we do not yet even know. Power has a tendency to change some men. I do not believe it is in the Republic's interests to allow those holding office the means with which to abuse their authority, should they choose to do so.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 16:41
Then I would ask senator Eclectic to retract Motion 10.18.
I second Motion 10.17, and thank you Numerius Aureolus for recomending me as a Legion Commander. I will send Publius Pansa Verginius a letter reminding him of it.
Tricky Lady
08-18-2006, 18:13
Third, I noticed that an Upper House Senator, Titus Vatinius, has a Praetorian army on the frontline with Thrace, north of Delmatia. I would suggest that the new Lower House Senator, Quintus Libo, be sent to replace him immediately. We do not want a repeat of the shame of Massilia ford. It might also be wise to move this force closer to Ratiaria in case Arapeithes does threaten there.
[TITUS VATINIUS]
Senators. Perhaps I am not the best debater nor the most frequent visitor of this ... institution. Messengers keep me posted on whatever is discussed over here and I believe it allows me to express my vote in a correct way. Personally I prefer to stay close to my men, -ha!- I prefer barracks over nice heated villas, but recently one of my messengers told me about a young senator who expressed his doubts of me being capable of leading a Praetorian army to defend a ford against Thrace. It is obvious that I will not accept such accusations.
Senator Aureolus, I have much respect for everything you have already realised during your short military career until now. I even see some of Quintus' spirit in your well-expressed debates, and for what I could hear of the recent battles you fought, it seems that you also possess the same genius in command as my late father-in-law. As you seem to have a more than common knowledge of our Republic's recent history, you should also remember that I served many years under Quintus' command. He surely was a great general, and I have learned much of him.
That's why I was bloody enraged when I read the senate scrolls and noticed that you publicly questionned my ability to command the Praetorian army who should defend the ford against any intrusions to our lands by the lowly Thracians. You should realise that I did not earn my command stars for nothing. I know how to command an army. Comparing me with the disgraced Publius Laevinius makes things only worse.
I am old enough not to start making childish claims for personal duels to be fought to regain honours and blah blah blah, but I still demand that you withdraw this insult.
OOC: I completely agree that Titus Vatinius should not command the Praetorian Army. I would be ashamed should the same thing happen to my avatar as what happened to Publius L. Of course I could try to fight the battle myself, but I am not sure if the result should be better than any autocalc result. :wink2:
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Legate Vatinius, you have an ironfist inside a velvet glove! That was quite the most devastating sucker punch I have experienced! Listening to your kind opening words, I almost fell off my seat when you turned to anger.
I unreservedly apologise for the offence I have given you. I sought only to refer to the convention that Upper House Senators not be given field commands, not to question your fine martial abilities.
And what is more, in view of the fighting spirit shown here, I retract my recommendation that you be withdrawn from your current posting.
I only wish you could be persuaded to step down into the Lower House so that the next time we sparr, it is side by side on the field against Rome's enemies.
[ooc: Please stay and fight any battles! I suspect the Consuls need some Lower House generals who might not spearhead offensives but could hold quiet sectors of the line and be called upon in emergencies.]
Tricky Lady
08-18-2006, 18:35
[TITUS VATINIUS]
Tribune Aureolus: it is clear that you are an incredibly wise man. Surely it was the inexperience and the impulsiveness of a young, promising military man that made you say those stupid things. I consider this case closed.
Now, I should send one of my servant to today's slave market around the corner as I need a new messenger. Something mysterious happened to the previous one when I read about your revolting speech, tribune Aureolus.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 20:17
Good to hear your voice in the senate once more, Titus Vatinius, it has been too long :2thumbsup:
*There is a clear sound of disgust from senator Servius and a very angry charge to his words.*
So now the three 'precise' locations where the churigeons are most needed are being dictated as well? I do not agree with any of the conflicts going on in the dictated locations. This motion 10.17 is starting to feel like just as much of a bad idea as 10.18. I do not agree with this, no, I do not agree with this garbage at all.
I hereby withdraw support for 10.17, and I adamantly refuse to send my churigeon off to the front unless he remains my ancillary, in my legion. Senate motion be damned, I will not let this senate control the movement of my personal servants.
Tricky Lady
08-18-2006, 21:55
Good to hear your voice in the senate once more, Titus Vatinius, it has been too long :2thumbsup:
[TITUS VATINIUS]
Lucius Aemilius, good to see you again too! I am most pleased with the way you pushed back the Gauls behind the Alps, something that should have been the very first thing our Senate should have authorised. Anyway, it's great to see a man like you making such a career in the Roman politics and military. My vote was surely well casted.
Now, let me have a look at the engravings you brought. Even though I was always informed on the Senate debates when I was off, I think I don't know the exact size of our glorious empire in its current state.
GeneralHankerchief
08-18-2006, 22:17
Er, Senator Vatinius! Welcome back! ...yeah...
Pay no attention to the fact that I called you "a useless weak-minded fool who shuts himself away for a week at the smallest sign of bad luck, and who is utterly dominated by his ignorant, sickly wife at every point in his life. I could also say that he is a foul-mouthed idiot who molests cats for fun" in front of your son. Uh, I was... just expressing my aggrivation at the current... war... situation?
*runs out of the Senate*
I will speak briefly on the issue of chirurgeons. According to the constitution, the First Consul is allowed to assign chirurgeons wherever he wishes. This I interpret to mean that you cannot own a chirurgeon, but that chirurgeons are assigned to you by the Republic. We are, therefore, constiutionally obliged to ignore the ravings of Servius Aemilius.
I am willing to withdraw my support of Motion 10.17, if Lucius Aemilius makes an informal promise to do what he can to transfer chirurgeons to the front lines. Those men should not sit in Rome while good Romans bleed to death in the fields.
Tricky Lady
08-18-2006, 22:35
[TITUS VATINIUS]
:supressing his anger: Young Aemilius, you confuse me with my -the Gods must really hate me!- son. If you would have used your tiny brain you would have known that I am far from being a weak-minded fool, leave alone that I would be dominated by my *spits* dearest Marcella! You still have plenty of lessons to learn!
:murmurs: Can't deny that molesting cats is fun though.
Off to my army I go, as there is nothing but cheap words to be found here.
Mount Suribachi
08-18-2006, 23:03
Titus Vatinius, good to see you here. I'm counting on you to keep the Thracians back, don't let me down.
[SENATE SPEAKER]: There are now less than 24 hours for the proposing of further motions and seconding of existing ones. Voting will commence at 6pm Saturday UK time.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 23:52
My vote was surely well casted.
Nice to be appreciated for a change. These senators, always moaning about the smallest details...errr...*suddenly realises he's IN the senate*...errr...anyway, it's been great ! Gotta go, pan on the fire, Thracians to kill !
*runs off after Marcellus*
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-18-2006, 23:54
I am willing to withdraw my support of Motion 10.17, if Lucius Aemilius makes an informal promise to do what he can to transfer chirurgeons to the front lines. Those men should not sit in Rome while good Romans bleed to death in the fields.
*leans back in the senate door*
Oh yes, about those chirurgeons, I'll look into it, see who's available and sort it out.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-19-2006, 00:25
*Next day*
Senators,
There is one matter I have overlooked in these hectic days, and that is the naming of the revived Legio VI. Several good names have already be submitted.
I you know better, or more appropriate ones, please let them be known. A poll wil be started in which the senators can vote on the new name of the Legio VI, along with the senate motions.
Names already submitted are as follows :
Legio VI Phoenix (or its correct Latin translation - anyone ?)
Legio VI The Red Shirts (to boldly go...:laugh4:)
Legio VI Immortalis
Legio VI Macedonica Excrabile
Legio VI Graecia Excrabile
Excrabile is Latin for cursed
Macedonica and Graecia are Macedonian and Greek.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: First Consul, your offer of your army's chirurgeon shames me. Your army, of all our armies, has most need of one. It has continually battled Thracians across the wilderness and its units are woefully under-strength. It lacks even a Tribune to deputise for you. Your bravery and your skill in battle are undisputed, First Consul, but please, for the sake of your veterans, retain their chirurgeon.
I apologise if my motion has seemed to usurp the proper function of a Consul. In its defence, I will say only this: in your first term as First Consul, Rome suffered 1339 casualties. I estimate that without chirurgeons in any armies, that would have led to 1138 deaths; with chirurgeons in all armies, there would have been only 737. The difference is about the size of the army that General Coruncanius currently commands at the Ratiaria ford.
But I will speak no more of chirurgeons - let the Senate decide the matter.
On the naming of Legio VI, I believe that is at the First Consul's discretion although it could be put to a vote as a motion. Personally, I believe "Legio VI Phoenix" is a most apt name. In my opinion as Pontifex Maximus, the Legion has earned neither a curse nor immortality, but it is certainly reborn.
[ooc: Eng. phoenix=phoenix or phoenicis in Latin]
{Cornelius Saturninus}
Greetings from Thessalonica, senators. Oh, the place is a shambles at the moment, I have to try and quell the unrest and find more men willing to keep order at every moment, but I received news of the rebirth of Legio VI and would like to offer my support of naming the legion Phoenicis. I do believe it is a suiting name, and it has a nice sound to it as well. I have to raise more levy troops, hire mercenaries, do whatever is necessary and get out of this place soon and onto the field, with the fighting men of Rome, where I belong. Ah, I must be off now. Another Greek demonstration against Roman rule is starting up in the streets, I must disband it immediately!
I too support the name Legio VI Phoenix.
(OOC: A quick google search shows that the correct latin spelling for phoenix is "phoenix." Go figure.)
Divinus Arma
08-19-2006, 08:10
Motion 10.18, as written is flawed! This was never my intent! I fear for a Republic where the Consuls' daft attachments are unloaded unto the representatives! Neigh, fine People! I reword Motion 10.18 as follows:
Motion 10.18 To ammend the constitution to allow acting Consuls to procure any such militarily relevant ancillaries as necessary for his campaign from other senators. These ancillaries must provide campaign or battle assistance only. Managerial and influential assistants do not fall within the perview of this motion. FURTHERMORE, the Consul is NOT empowered to unload existing ancillaries to accept new ancillaries.
How stand you? Does this not serve the greater glory of Rome! Would you not release your advisors to serve for the betterment of the people and the expansion of the people's lands?!?!?
[SENATE SPEAKER]: The list of all motions and their seconders has been updated. Senators should speak out if they notice any any errors or omissions. Voting will commence in seven and a half hours time.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-19-2006, 10:34
I'm still against it. Motion 10.18 remains too vague and unspecific. For example, the 'veteran centurion' is a military ancilliary, but it also a cool RP-tool to have. The same goes for ''military tribune', 'heroic saviour', etc...
I could use this motion as I see fit, by declaring the 'military' value of an ancilliary.
I might support a revised motion that list all the ancilliaries involved by name.
[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senators, as Pontifex Maximus, I have had a fitiful night communing with the augurs. I have seen repeated visions of what may come to pass if we should fail in our duty.
I have seen terrible things: our people dying of disease, settlements beseiged and lost, myself drowning at sea. I have seen the heads of the brave Legate Vatininus and Praetor Coruncanius hanging outside the tent of Arapaithes the Bloody-handed.
But, Senators, there is hope too in what the seers foretell. Factions we expect to become enemies may yet remain good neighbours. Moreover, we may find powerful allies willing to share their knowledge of the world.
I pray that the gods grant pro-Consul Publius Pansa the strength to avoid the perils the augurs have foreseen and seize the opportunities.
Divinus Arma
08-19-2006, 20:25
I'm still against it. Motion 10.18 remains too vague and unspecific. For example, the 'veteran centurion' is a military ancilliary, but it also a cool RP-tool to have. The same goes for ''military tribune', 'heroic saviour', etc...
I could use this motion as I see fit, by declaring the 'military' value of an ancilliary.
I might support a revised motion that list all the ancilliaries involved by name.
Is that right? So you stand for YOURSELF. You would abandon the cause of Rome for your own selfish designs?
Remember, all those seek it may one day become Consul, and thus all can benefit from this.
For now, you blatantly stand against the betterment of Rome. Nothing but good can come of this and their exists little abuse that could come about in its current form. I have already addressed many of the concerns of the detracters.
Motion 10.18 is quite clear, however I will consider an amendment if another Senator seeks to co-sponsor and the amendment fits the spirit of 10.18.
[SENATE SPEAKER]: This session of Senate is now closed for the proposing and seconding of motions. Voting is open for one day.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-19-2006, 22:05
Is that right? So you stand for YOURSELF. You would abandon the cause of Rome for your own selfish designs?
Remember, all those seek it may one day become Consul, and thus all can benefit from this.
For now, you blatantly stand against the betterment of Rome. Nothing but good can come of this and their exists little abuse that could come about in its current form. I have already addressed many of the concerns of the detracters.
You need not have fear on my my concern. Did I not offer my chirurgeon to Numerius Aureolus for free ? Yet one day a less scruprulous senator may wield the power of first consul. This is why I object to this motion.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-19-2006, 22:09
As I do not seem to be clever enough to actually create a poll, I will give Legio VI the honorif Phoenix by acclamation. Henceforth, they shall be known as the Legio VI Phoenix.
SENATE SPEAKER: The votes have been counted but again we appear to be in the unhappy state of authorising contradictory motions.
Motion 10.2 has been passed, requiring the conquest of Byzantium, as has motion 10.6, ruling out the conquest of Greek settlements not on our borders. As Byzantium is a Greek settlement currently not on our borders, there is a clear contradiction.
When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled. Hence, I interpret the current situation as being that motion 10.2, as the earlier motion, takes precedence over 10.6. Thus, the Senate mandates the conquest of Byzantium. However, the circle may be squared if events change and Byzantium comes to border our territory before we are in a position to take it.
Senators have also passed a motion 10.8 ruling out conquests unless authorised by previous legislation on establishing a frontier bounded by the Danube. I do not interpret this as ruling out conquest of Byzantium, as Byzantium lies south of the proposed Danube frontier and would be a natural part of a Republic bounded by that river. However, in the event of their being a contradiction, motion 10.2 would still take precedence being the earlier motion.
I apologise for not anticipating this possible confusion and requesting that the rider "This motion invalidates 10.2" be inserted into 10.6. I had thought the contradiction between motions 10.2 and 10.6 would be apparent to the voters and hence only one would pass.
What is the tiebreaker? Motion 10.4 is listed as failed with 24 (influence-biased) votes for each side. It has 7-6 non-biased votes in favor of 'yes'.
Tricky Lady
08-20-2006, 21:23
[TITUS VATINIUS]
Errr... Perhaps I didn't study Lucius Aemilius' engravings well enough as I have voted for both motions 10.2 and 10.6 while it was my intention to only approve motion 10.2. My apologies, it is clear that it was not a good moment for me to judge on senate motions after a long night party... emmm... discussing with my priest of Mars.
I shall make sure to be more careful during the next voting rounds.
(On the other hand my vote doesn't seem to make the difference)
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-20-2006, 22:36
When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled.
I do not recall this. Could you verify this by looking into the senate records ? Otherwise I am inclined to say that as both motions invalidate each other, they cancel each other out and the consuls are free to make up their own minds.
[SENATE SPEAKER]: The scribes have found the following:
In view of the confusion over past Senate motions, I am following Senator Swordmaster's advice and setting a restriction on new motions:
RESTRICTION: Where a motion contradicts existing legislation or a motion (let us call it motion number # from Senate session dated X) that has been tabled with two seconders, the new motion must begin "This motion invalidates motion number # from Senate session dated X"
If a motion does not have such a clause and is found to contradict an earlier motion that has passed, then the earlier motion will take precedence.
Although the wording may not be as clear as could be, the clause "a motion that has been tabled with two seconders" refers to a motion that has been proposed in the same session before a particular motion. Since that time, we have had several motions that have adhered to this convention and have explicitly said, in bold capital letters, "THIS MOTION INVALIDATES MOTION X.Y".
The restriction arose over the issue of Consul Aemilius's conquest of some Carthaginian islands.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1167094&postcount=466
Contradictory motions were also an issue in the mid-term of Consul Verginius's period of office and the restriction was alluded to again:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1177003&postcount=85
On another point, the scribes are currently runninng out of parchment and will shortly close this record and begin a third book of our deliberations. I will leave this one open for a while so that we can come to a proper close on this interim session of Senate. But shortly, we will start a new page under pro-Consul Publius Pansa.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-20-2006, 23:14
Very well, Senate Speaker. You are accurate and irrefutable as always. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf.
Unfortunately this leaves the consuls no other option but to comply with the senate wishes, ill advised as we may think they may be. We will probably plunge our troops in new wars in the East, while we are still not recovered from our previous and ongoing, and perhaps upcoming, wars.
Alea jacta est.
The flight of the brids this morning predicted evil tidings. I hope they did not bear on the senate decisions this day, but I fear the worst.
SENATE SPEAKER:
When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled. Hence, I interpret the current situation as being that motion 10.2, as the earlier motion, takes precedence over 10.6. Thus, the Senate mandates the conquest of Byzantium.
Senators have also passed a motion 10.8 ruling out conquests unless authorised by previous legislation on establishing a frontier bounded by the Danube. I do not interpret this as ruling out conquest of Byzantium, as Byzantium lies south of the proposed Danube frontier and would be a natural part of a Republic bounded by that river. However, in the event of their being a contradiction, motion 10.2 would still take precedence being the earlier motion.
What logic is this? Two motions are voted in that specifically reject the conquest of Byzantium and one which favors it, yet you pick the single over the two? Senate Speaker, I have seen you spending a great deal of time with Numerius Aureolus lately. He was an outspoken proponet of the single motion that you now favor. Could it be that he has bought his way into favorable legislation?
Let us examine the exact text of the language I myself proposed. In reference to Motion 10.8, it reads "No provinces will be conquered except those specified by the previous legislation authorizing expansion to the Danube. This Motion will be void if Rome is attacked by any currently neutral nation." Speaker, you have so conveniently ignored what the actual language of the previous legislation was. This clearly refers to Motion 9.18 which reads: "This House proposes that the wars with Thrace, Illyria and Macedon be directed towards establishing a frontier along the river Danube."
In this legislation, the Thracian, Illyrian and Macedonian lands are specifically named, but there is no mention at all of any Greek territories. Thus, Motion 9.18 does not refer to expansion to Greek territories south of the Danube and as such Motion 10.8 cannot possibly allow the conquest of a Greek territory south of the Danube. So, contrary to your statements, Motion 10.8 specifically rejects any conquest of Byzantium, as does Motion 10.6. It is an unjustified abuse of power to simply declare that the legislation supported by your 'friend' Numerius Aureolus is that which is superior based on nothing more than the fact that Tiberius Coruncanius spoke only 20 minutes before me!
I fully believe that the two enacted motions are superior to the one, but if you will not bow to that clear logic, I demand an emergency vote to determine whether Motions 10.6 and 10.8 invalidate Motion 10.2 or vice versa.
We are following precedent. This is not the first time contradictory motions were an issue, and the last time we decided that motions proposed first would have a precedence over later motions. The logic behind this is simple: the propser of a motion can review previous motions (but can't see into the future), and explicitly state that his motion invalidates certain previous motions. That is the responsibility of the proposer, so that everything is prefectly clear and that there is no confusion.
This rule has been established for a while now. It is your fault that you did not review the already proposed motions.
Death the destroyer of worlds
08-20-2006, 23:39
Senators,
After hearing senator Augustus Verginius speak, well versed in rhetoric as always, I am inclined to agree and will support his demands.
Not the time of the proposition of the motions, but if the motion passed or not is what matters. This, in my view at least, leaves us with two options.
We can give the consuls free will in the case of conflicting motions, which in this case will imply that Greece is left alone for now, or we can take an emergency vote which goes explicitly about the matter of whether Greece is attacked or not.
Lastly, we can let the matter lie for now, and attack Greece, and take this matter up in the next senate session and propose a constitutional amendment then. I advise my co-consul to leave the Greek cities alone for now and concentrate on Debeltos first.
I am curious about the views of the senate on this.
Lucius Aemilius and Augustus Verginius, you didn't raise any issue with the first motion takes precedence convention when it was originally concieved, why are you raising an issue now when it would invalidate the motion you support? Surely you're not wishing to change the rules each time so that your pet motion passes?
We are following precedent. This is not the first time contradictory motions were an issue, and the last time we decided that motions proposed first would have a precedence over later motions. The logic behind this is simple: the propser of a motion can review previous motions (but can't see into the future), and explicitly state that his motion invalidates certain previous motions. That is the responsibility of the proposer, so that everything is prefectly clear and that there is no confusion.
This rule has been established for a while now. It is your fault that you did not review the already proposed motions.
I did not review the already proposed motions because they did not exist when I began composing my statement to the Senate! A penalty is being enacted simply because I did not 'submit' my statement to this 'forum' prior to you! I did not include invalidation statements in my legislation because no legislation existed to be invalidated when I first composed it. I admit that I was in error for not going back to correct my mistake once it was made, but it seems here that an arbitrary decision is being made based upon flimsy logic and rules which were never voted into law by this Senate in the first place!
Are you so afraid of ceding to the will of the Roman people that you will not allow a simple vote on the matter? Would you deprive the Senate of an opportunity to make its own desires clear to all?
Here is an idea, let all those who voted for the conquest of Byzantium attend it's siege, that way when the armies of both Ptolemy and the Seleucids descend upon it from opposite sides to secure the strongest foothold they could have against their enemy, these senators can defend their ill thought motion and their isolated and surrounded legion with their own lives.
You have voted to abandon our soldiers in the depths of a snake pit senators, why don't you all join them?
[SENATE SPEAKER]: Legate Verginius, consult the first record I linked to. Shortly before it, you will see young Sextus Antio crying out -somewhat out of character - then, as you do now:
You can't make Motion 1 stand just because it was proposed first.
You will then see that my restriction was explicitly designed to say that you [i]can[/b] make a motion stand just because it was proposed first.
Senator Swordsmaster proposed that existing leglislation that precedence over contradictory motions unless the latter explicitly stated they invalidated what came earlier.
When adopting that proposal in my restriction, I deliberately extended it to include giving precedence to motions proposed earlier in the same session. That was done quite deliberately, in order to avoid the arguments that then raged between Sextus Antio and others on the matter of the Carthaginian islands.
Please consult the record and then do not anger me my reviving an argument that Senate conventions have evolved to avoid.
First Consul Aemilius, I have no power to tell you what to do or not to do. As I stated to you when you were faced with contradictory motions in the mid-term of your period as First Consul:
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.
I merely explain the conventions we have developed to decide what is the will of the Senate in the event of contradictory motions being passed. I do not think it necessary to have a vote on vote. Our conventions are clear and I am glad that you, at least initially, accepted them as I have laid them out. The will of the Senate is that Byzantium be taken.
You must now act as your conscience dictates, just as Consul Verginius did when faced with unpalatable results from contradictory motions at his mid-term session of Senate.
As for the Senate, it needs to take more care in legislating and should not think that it can simply start again if the wording is sloppy or the voting inconsistent.
I would now like to draw a line under this affair and propose we leave it to the Consuls to get on with their term of office. I will call a new session of Senate for the purpose of discussing the events that unfold. Personally, I am afraid I must now withdraw to attend to other business and will not be able to reply to any other interventions for a while.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.