The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations III

This thread is devoted to in-character communications about the Rome Total Realism Platinum PBM explained here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65972

For all out of character business - including volunteering to join the campaign - please post in the out of character thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67616

This thread should be for Senate business only.

On a personal note, I will post in two strictly separate capacities: as Senate Speaker (which I will preface by SENATE SPEAKER and write in normal type) and as an ordinary participant (which I will preface by the name of my avatar, currently Quintus, and write in italics).

During formal sessions of the Senate (every 10 turns of the game), motions can be proposed. Each motion requires TWO seconders before it can be voted on.

Motions that invalidate existing motions or motions proposed earlier should explicitly state that, otherwise they will be invalidated.

**********************************

MOTIONS PROPOSED THIS SESSION OF SENATE

Motion 12.01: This senate authorises the solidification of a permanent boundary in Asia Minor that is, by no means whatsoever, to extend any further north or east beyond the territorial integrity of lands held under the influence of the cities of Heracleia, Ancyra, Adana, and Side.
Proposed: Marcellus Aemilius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Quintus Libo, Manius Coruncanius, Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.02: If the revised Motion 12.01 is broken by the consul's actions, the consul hereby agrees to immediately step down from his position and relinquish the consulship to a new, elected consul.
Proposed: Servius Aemilius
Seconded: Marcellus Aemilius, Quintus Libo, Manius Coruncanius, Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.03: When the current temple construction finishes in Rome next season, the Consul must immediately begin construction on a Hippodrome. When the Hippodrome is completed after five season, the Consul must immediately begin construction on an Amphitheatre.
Proposed: Augustus Verginius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.04: This house instructs the Consul to re-occupy Viberi with no delay, and to never again abandon it.
Proposed: Tiberius Coruncanius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.05: This house instructs the Consul to prevent the incursion of any Iberian army into Roman territory by any means at his disposal.
Proposed: Tiberius Coruncanius
Seconded: Lucius Aemilius

Motion 12.06: The next time there is an Iberian incursion into Roman territory lasting more than one season, the Consul is instructed to send Augustus Verginius into Iberian territory for a counter-incursion. However, no military action is to be initiated by Romans unless the Iberians attack. Senator Verginius' force is to be recalled immediately after the Iberians return to their territory. This motion is rendered null if Senator Verginius dies.
Proposed: Marcellus Aemilius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Lucius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.07 The Senate instructs the Consul to ensure that three Legions full are stationed along the Republic/Iberian borders.
Proposed: Manius Coruncanius
Seconded: Servius Aemilius, Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.08 Upon approval and completion of Motion 12.07; the Senate instructs the Consul to not permit any more Iberian incursions into Republican territory to go unchallenged. So, any more incursions are to be met with Force and expelled by any means nessasary.
Proposed: Manius Coruncanius
Seconded: Tiberius Coruncanius

Motion 12.09:Before any hostile action be taken against Iberia by ourselves, our situation in the East must be stable, in that there will be no more expansion and there will be at least two legions (three if possible) stationed there for purely defensive purposes.
Proposed: Cornelius Saturnius

Motion 12.10.: We recruit an additional two praetorian sized legions which will be stationed at the coastal cities of Massilia and Palma.
Proposed: Servius Aemilius
Seconded: Manius Coruncanius

Constitutional Ammendment 12.A: At every midterm session of this house, we Senators will elect a Tribune of the Plebs who will have the power to veto 1 (one) motion per session. He will hold office for the session he is elected during and also the following Consular election. He may not veto Ammendments. Note: this ammendment requires 2/3 majority to pass.
Proposed: Quintus Libo
Seconded: Appius Barbatus

This continues the matter of the attack on the Greek Cities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

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?

---

The conflicting motions at that time either worked out to my satisfaction or did not concern me. I agree with you and the senate speaker, that I should have seen this legislative problem looming in the future and taken steps to avoid it in advance. Nevertheless, I am arguing the case now. The conquest of Byzantium is such a strategic mistake that I can not sit by idly. I would be remiss in my duties as co-sconsul if I did. If we were discussing a trivial matter I would wait untill the next session before proposing a constitutional amendment, but as the matter is so grave, I feel we must resolve it immediately.
Are you afraid of the senate, that you dare not allow an emergency vote ?

[SENATE SPEAKER]: First Consul, please, allow me to open the proceedings! Your enthusiasm does you credit, but some decorum please.

As I was about to say at the outset, welcome, Senators, to another chapter in the deliberations of this august house. I know that some important procedural issues were discussed quite recently and understand that Senators may wish, contrary to my personal preference, to keep debating them. In this regard, I would only observe the last line in the notice posted above:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First post of Senate deliberations II & III threads

Motions that invalidate existing motions or motions proposed earlier should explicitly state that, otherwise they will be invalidated.

---

Note that this was simply copied from the start of the previous chapter of our deliberations. In accordance with this convention, I hereby strike down motions 10.6 and 10.8 as being invalid in so far as they contradict motion 10.2

We witness here the birth of tyranny. Those men who have the most to gain from this action also, it seems, have the power to enforce their will against the Republic. They do so through acts of dubious validity backed by an authority that cannot be reprimanded by this body. Worst of all, they refuse to consult with the citizens of Rome. This would be bad enough if it were just some normal legislation, but alas it is worse than that.

These acts which are being pushed through threaten to throw the Republic into war with the two greatest empires in the world. Countless citizens will lose their lives in these struggles. Unimaginable amounts of money will be diverted from projects to better the lives of Romans to these wars. No one will benefit from this, save those generals who command the armies which are given looting rights in the devestated regions. The same men who now push through this abomination to the ideals of the Republic.

Do not fool yourselves, Senators, we witness here today the corruption of justice and the beginning of a long descent into an 'Imperial' Rome.

That's a rather lovely oration, Verginius. It would be even nicer if it was graced by the presence of any facts.

The fact is that we have a convention to deal with contradictory motions. This convention has been in place for over 10 years. It has been used more than once to deconflict contradictory motions. It was clearly stated as a convention that will be used. You did not complain at all.

But now, that your motion is the one to be invalidated by that convention (something you could have easily prevented), all of a sudden, it's tyranny!

Maybe it is, but it is you who we should keep an eye on. The Speaker has applied the same standard to these motions as in the past. But no, this is Augustus Verginius' motion! No, no, rules that apply just fine for other motions do not apply to it! We must revote on it until it passes!

In short, I would be much more willing to consider your complaints about the Senate conventions if those were based on a true concern about how the Senate operates. It is, however, quite clear that these complaints come from the fact that your motion was defeated. You haven't even suggested a better way to deconflict contradictory motions! All you have done is complained about which motion is to be followed. It is obvious that your motives are to push your agenda, rather than to reexamine the workings of the Senate, and I don't much care for it.

How can I possibly benefit from from the legislation I proposed? What is in it that will have even the remotest effect on my person? I have publicly stated that I will not ever leave the Gallic front and I mean that. I will neither gain nor lose regardless of any action that is taken on this matter. No, I do not speak out for myself, I speak out for the Republic.

You say I only speak up now because it is my legislation that has been voted down? Clearly you do not remember that the second of the two previous issues was just that; the approval of others' legislation over my own. I did not speak up then because they were trivial issues in the grand scope of affairs. If I was truly so interested in my own legislation, as you suggestion, I would have demanded another vote then, as now; but I did not because it is not self-interest that drives me. I speak for the citizens of Rome, Senator Coruncanius, whom do you speak for?

The previous matters which you cite as proof of my complacency were minor issues of little significant to the future of Rome. There are entire orders of magnitude between those incidents and this one. This is a very serious matter that may plunge us into the most devestating wars the world has ever seen. I would be as guilty of criminal neglicence as Publius Laevinus if I held my tongue under such circumstances. If the Republic is to risk war with the most powerful empires in the world, it must do so with the clear consent of the Senate! It makes me sick to think that such a monumentous decision can be made on the basis of a procedural policy that was never voted upon by anyone. I am not afraid of my legislation being defeated. There can be no defeat if the Republic as a whole desires this course of action. I will fully submit and say not a single word more on this, regardless of the outcome, if it is put to a vote.

What reason do you have for denying a vote? Why do you wish to prevent the citizens from making their voices heard? Do you consider war with Selucia and Ptolemy such a minor matter that a single day's delay in its commencement would annoy you?

Let us look at what the Senate voted for, shall we? The text of Motion 10.2 reads:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

This motion passed with a wide margin. This motion is perfectly clear, and there is no way you can deny that the Senate wishes anything other than the conquer Byzantium, based on how they voted on that motion. Motion 10.6 reads:

No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours.

For the most part, Senators who voted for this motion did not vote for the other one, and vice versa. Some Senators voted for both, however. Why do you suppose that is? This motion isn't as clear. Senators may not have been aware of the exact geographical situation. With the extreme clarity of Motion 10.2, how can we come to any conclusion other than that certain Senators thought Byzantium was exempt, for whatever reason, from the provisions of this motion. Titus Vatinius was one of the Senators who voted for both motions, and I quote her.. err, him:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tricky Lady

[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)

---

You also mentioned Motion 10.8, but I disagree with your reasoning. Motion 9.18 states how wars with Thrace, Illyria, and Macedon should be fought (i.e. with an objective of reaching the Danube). The non-mention of the Greeks by this motion simply means that motion does not at all address the war with the Greeks, not that it prohibits it.

In any case, Motions 10.6 and 10.8 are much less clear in their intent than Motion 10.2. While there is room for variable interpretations of those two motions, there is only one way to interpret Motion 10.2, and this motion has been approved by the Senate. I do not see how it is in any way conceivable that the will of the Senate is anything other than to capture Byzantium.

It is exactly for this reason that I oppose another vote on the issue. Even disregarding all precedent concerning contradictory motions, it is clear that the Senate wants Byzantium. I can only imagine that you would introduce even more complicated and unclear motions at the proposed emergency session. Yet, if we again had the motion with the text:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

Is there really any doubt about how the Senate would vote? I don't see any better way to have the Senate decide on the issue of Byzantium. I fear your intent may be to obfuscate the issue, which is why I am against a vote on the exact thing we already voted on.

We could have a vote on precedence rules, but I would be weary of applying them retroactively, so it is best left to the next session.

Let the senators who voted to conquer Byzantium join the men they would throw into that snake pit! Let the venom of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid adders seep into their veins as it would the honorable flesh and blood of the Roman soldiers that these senators would send to an isolated hades on Earth. You are condemning these men to certain death.

Now that I have spoken my mind as to the inept thought by those that have voted for motion 10.2, my opinion on the conflicting motions is...

In my eyes, both motions are valid, and both motions stand, however, because motion 10.2 instructs the consul to take Byzantium, but motion 10.6 states that no attacks shall be made on Greek cities that do not border Rome, and both motions were passed, then I do not feel that attacking Byzantion is a direct instruction of the senate until Byzantion borders Rome. For Byzantion to border Rome, we would have to go to war with the Ptolemies, which no motion in this session advised. So, in my mind, the consul is not required to assault Byzantion unless the Greeks expand westward in Ptolemeic land and once again border Rome, in which case we would have an open attack at Greek land leading to Byzantion.

Further more, to my confusion, two of the senators who voted for attacking Byzantion voted against the motion that advised the replenishment of the legions. How is Rome supposed to fight any battles with undermanned legions, let alone take and hold a city that it shares no border with and cannot hope to keep supplied by sea when it's surrounded by two of the world's largest nations?

Further more, there is no possible way that the wording of motion 10.6 could cause confusion leading up to the conflict between the two motions. "No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours." Or, in fools terms, as it seems things need to be placed. *Speaks in a mocking voice* "We can't attack them if we can't see their land from ours."

The only confusion here is senators' poor knowledge of Roman borders and the things that lie outside them. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that didn't know a world existed outside Rome at all. To them, the names Carthage, Ptolemy, Seleucid...they probably sound like the names of master toga weavers! If only I were so foolish that I could spend 1,000 denarii on a toga and ignore the pain of Roman citizens, I might be like many others in this senate.

Conscript Fathers, if I may interrupt here. When I first saw that the both of the motions in question had passed, I must confess my heart lept! Now I had a way of not attacking Byzantion, an act that you all know I have been greatly opposed to.

Unfortunately, I had forgotten the rules and the precedent regarding contradicting motions. Much as I do not like it in this case, I must bow to the voting rules of this august house. Augustus Verginius, you have spoken passionately against this result, but in the past you have spoken equally passionately about the need for order - how it is our laws and rules that separate us from the barbarians. I urge you know to remember what you have said in the past and swallow your pride. I agree with what you and my co-consul say about the madness of this proposed expidition, but that does not mean I shall not ignore the laws of this house.

So with a heavy - nay, solemn heart I accept that Byzantion must be conquered. But hear this Conscript Fathers, hear this! My consulship has 10 more seasons to run, do not expect this great walled city to be taken afore the year is out! As I have told you my astrologers and augers have predicted war with Ptolomy shortly. Numerius Aureolus has dreamed of an equally dire future. I predict this debate shall all be academic soon anyway.

And if it is not, Servius Aemilius speaks words of wisdom. Let those who would seek to enact such foolish actions risk their lives to do it.

Senators,

I must apologise for being absent from the last Senate Vote, this was due to my studies who have reached their final stages before I can leave my education and join the Republic in service.

I fear the same issue will occur (OOC: Depending on how fast the game is played) for the next voting session but I hope it will not.

I apologise mainly because my vote could have stopped this internal feud and the bickering about procedure.

However, I will publicly announce now, that I would have supported motion 10.2, perhaps we will have had the same heated debate even if motion 10.6 was clearly not voted through? The reasons for support in both is understandable.

Senator Publius Pansa speaks the truth and I will not turn to the plebs for action or any other such illegal act, even if it would aid the Republic. Yet, I would like to take a moment to clarify to all exactly what madness has been enacted here.

First, Debeltos is to be taken and then immediately gifted to Ptolemy. Second, Byzantion is to be taken and held and neither Nicomedia nor any other Greek city is to be attacked. While all of Greece's current attention is diverted to the east in their war with Seleucia, it will surely turn back against us as soon as we take Byzantium. While they certainly cannot threaten us, this removes a limiting force on one of the two great eastern empires. In Macedonia, we shall remove the only enemy of Ptolemy in Europe, leaving his armies in the area idle. We shall then surround ourselves with warring empires and block the most significant access point by which they can fight. One, most likely both, will attack us and we will be forced to hold the city while in some 'desperate' and dramatic fashion while relief armies move east to relieve it. Perhaps the relief will arrive just in time, to find Numerius Aureolus alone in the city claiming that the rest of the legion fought to its death and that it was only the prompt arrival of allies that scared the enemy away!

Regardless, this will mean war with either or both of the eastern empires, one which will surely not cease in any of our lifetimes. We will permanently lose trade access to all eastern ports, revenue will drop, and thousands of citizens will be killed in battles. For what, I ask you? For the vanity of a few men who will profit at the expense of the Republic.

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, with all respect, I fear you misunderstand the situation. If Egypt does turn hostile (as I expect), they will indeed surround Debeltos. But they will not attack the city of Debeltos. Rather, we will march from Debeltos to attack them. In one season, Legio V could take Tylis and the pro-Consul's army could take Maronia. This would expell the Egyptians from Europe.

Such a swift response to Egyptian aggression would also lead to our territory becoming adjacent to Byzantion. Hence Motion 10.6 would not apply. Neutral Egypt going to war with us would also negate Motion 10.8. So let us not argue over hypothetical contradictions. The pro-Consul has indicated he will not act precipitously in the matter of Byzantion. Let us take one step at a time and respond to events on the ground.

Mention of the Co-Consul leads me to respond his accusation in his First Consul's Report that I was insurbordinate for refusing to exterminate Debeltos. Co-Consul, I sincerely apologise for any slight given, it was not intended. But the stipulation that no city (except Carthage) may be exterminated is the second rule in our constitution. It can only be over-riden by a Senate motion. Co-Consul, for the good of the Republic, the two of us must co-operate closely on the field of battle in the coming seasons. Let us not fall out over simple adherence to the rules.

I would also like to humbly remind the Consuls that our ships can only practically carry one unit of soldiers each. The trip to Debeltos was so over-crowded, I swear, the Bastarnae and Samartians had to swim alongside us through the Bosphorus. I would also remind them that it is possible to retrain ship crews to bring them back up to strength. The last ship in the fleet had only a captain as its crew. Although he was rather a dour fellow, I feel he could use some company - especially in the event of a sea battle.

Make whatever excuses and legal justification you wish Aureolus. You and your backers are drawing us into a war that will exact a heavy toll on the Republic, both physically and financially. There is more to life than conquest, Aureolus, and there is more to being a Roman than finding victory in battle. The Gauls were driven to Rome out of greed and it is greed that propels us to Byzantium. In the end, our victories over the Gauls will be hollow if we become barbarians ourselves.

First of all noble Senators, I announce my marriage to the most beautiful Urgunalla. It is a fine match that has been made for me and I will do my damnest to ensure the creation of more noble citizens and future Legates of the Republic!........*he, he*

Now, to more serious matters. I have to say that although I support the taking of Byzantion I have to remind the Co-Consuls that whilst it is a matter the Senate has instructed them to perform, there is no timescale upon this apart from the ending of the Co-Consulship.

I refer to that which has been stated by my good friend Numerius Aureolus in this matter in that both motions 10.2 and 10.6 can be upheld and I say that we do not march to war, nay, we are forced into it by the continued rejection of every diplomatic mission we send.

How can anyone stand here and say WE are forcing war when it is our neighbours, who constantly reject us….even an offer of a profitable city and province is not enough to grant friendship with them it seems.

If they are to act thus, then let it be so, and war is the result Senators. It is our neighbours who force us to secure our borders thus…..no dreams of conquest fill my mind, just the hope that IF…..IF, we can expel those factions around us who continue to refuse to even parlay with us, then and only then can we have an assured peace Senators.

I had hoped that if we manage to maintain waterbound borders we could have peace but it seems that Carthage did not subscribe to that ideal….so…..

Now, I draw the Senators notice to Melite and the Carthaginian aggression! I am gladdened by the Co-Consuls swift response in this matter but we must not believe the issue is dealt with until the Carthanagianis have been expelled…..or indeed until their capital burns!

I do not have long until my studies have ended, then I will be at the disposal of the Co-Consuls; but I ask that perhaps I am granted leave until I have succeeded in my personal quest with my new wife?

(OOC: See the OOC thread for my timescale for joining the lower house)

Young Coruncanius, I believe, though the Senate Speaker may correct me, that unless stated otherwise, motions are only applicable to the current consulship.

Now, go and enjoy your honeymoon. There will be plenty of battles for all of us when you return. *mutters under breath* except for Alexander Aureolus no doubt....

You are correct Co-Consul, however, that's what I stated.

With only two, is it?, regions between ourselves and Byzantion....regions that will perhaps become hostile very soon....do you not see it very possible that we will border Byzantion before your Consulship ends, and therefore, be able to uphold Motion 10.2 without violating 10.6?

10 seasons is a very long time. We have seen Dynasties be destroyed in less time.

Dynasties, master Coruncanius? Is this a hint that the Coruncanii have royal ambitions and wish to rule Rome as the new generation of tyrants?

I was, blatantly, referring to those “Dynasties” that we have seen demise – many by our hand. Macedonia for example.

My family IS a Dynasty…..this means we have a long history. Thus I use the word in the Family sense not the Emperic sense.

Be careful about trying to put words into my mouth Senator, I am staunchly a Republican, first and foremost, a member of my family secondly to that great responsibility. Others have recently put family before the Republic and with very grave consequence.

Tribune Numerius Aureolus,

You walk a tight rope between respect and insubordination. Remember, you have not yet earned the respect of high office, and a fall now might yet be quite deep. Nevertheless, your arguments are persuasive and I will let your disobidiance in this matter slide considering your accomplishements on this mission.

I apologize if I have miscalculated the number of ships required to transport your legion (I count avatars for free, by the way). Those fleet engagements did us more harm than I realised. I can imagine how uncomfortable you must have been on the long and dangerous voyage and I applaud your men for fighting such a valiant action at the end of it (ships, like troops, may be retrained in an emergency. What specifies an emergency is something the consuls must decide for themselves, but I advise reluctance on their part). Your strategy was sound, but your tactics still have some of the recklesness of youth in them.

The death of the last general responsible for the death of an Roman consul, my friend an co-consul Amulius Coruncanius, pleases me greatly and spreads fear amongst our enemies at a critical moment in the continuing story of our Republic, the resurgence of the Republic of Carthage. I will make the appropriate offerings tonight to bring his spirit to rest and I hope it slightly eases the grief of my friend, the general Tiberius and his family. The destruction of the kingdom of Macedonia might have appeared like a reckless exercise by some in this house, but it has shown our enemies that Rome will not give up the pursuit of them no matter how far they flee, nor will we stop the pursuit untill they surrender or perish.

I will speak out on the strategy the consuls will follow and the renewed Carthagian threat when I resume command of our armed forces.

Aureolus did nothing wrong. It is clearly against the constitution to exterminate a city without the approval of the Senate. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. Hopefully the Senate will let the issuing of this illegal order slide, seeing how the order was not executed.

Also, Lucius Aemilius, I most eagerly await to hear your strategy on dealing with the Carthaginians, seeing how it was you who withdrew our troops from Sicily. I am also wondering why I spent most of my Consulship improving the fleet if the Carthaginians will be allowed to drive their boats wherever they want, including near our islands.

The fleet cannot be everywhere at once and has been heavily tasked in the wars with Macedon & Greece. Most of the western fleet was in harbour for repair & reinforcement, or on their way to such.

Furthermore Melite is but a stones throw from Africa - the Carthaginians could probably swim there with little difficulty.

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: The Carthaginians seem to be landing in force. It would be wise not to under-estimate them. The Praetorian army already en route to Sicily may not be enough now that we know the threat of landings is real and not merely hypothetical. I wonder, what are the Consuls thoughts on our appropriate response?

And specifically, which Lower House generals are the Co-Consul intending to task with fighting the Carthaginians? I hastened to add, I ask only out of curiosity, I have no particular personal stake in this question - I suspect I am currently the furthest general from Melite in the whole Republic.

Senator Tiberius Coruncanius,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

Aureolus did nothing wrong. It is clearly against the constitution to exterminate a city without the approval of the Senate. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. Hopefully the Senate will let the issuing of this illegal order slide, seeing how the order was not executed.

---

I had made it clear on several occasions in my speeches in the senate that if we took Debeltos, it would be razed to the ground and abandoned one way or the other. The senate was well aware of the consuls' views and not one voice was ever raised in protest. As the senate then voted for motion 10.1 almost unanomously this is clearly not to be considered an order we gave, but an order which was given by the senate.

Instead, tribune Numerius Aureolus has taken it upon himself to dictate state policy. As it was indeed against our constitution I was willing to let it slide this time, but the fact remains that he violated a direct order from the highest raking body in this state. A tall order for such a young man, which the senate might take exception to. Lastly, but most importantly, the rule was clearly instigated to prevent army commanders from senslessy exterminating towns, but didn't we just exterminate Gergovia, again, on direct orders of the senate ?

I was trying to spare this young man an impeachment, but now I feel compelled to ask if any senator wishes to accuse him of treason ?

Technically, that senator would be right to do so. I ask the senate's forbearance in this matter, as the young man was clearly carried away by compassion, and as his mission was a success otherwise, clearly the Gods were not offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

Also, Lucius Aemilius, I most eagerly await to hear your strategy on dealing with the Carthaginians, seeing how it was you who withdrew our troops from Sicily. I am also wondering why I spent most of my Consulship improving the fleet if the Carthaginians will be allowed to drive their boats wherever they want, including near our islands.

---

I cannot make it rain legions and warships out of the blue sky, senator. The grieveous losses in my first term did not help either. I shall neglect to go into the sorry state of our armies when I took over as consul, or that the entire fleet was hundreds of miles away from Carthage of the coast of Greece, instead of divided in three parts as it is now.
Instead, I point you to my forsight of immediately sending a new legion to Sicily the moment Numidia was destroyed, even if it has now costs us Acquileia, we at least have a legion and a fleet on the scene in Sicily.

p.s. Senate Librarian, kindly add the carried interim motions to the library if you will.

[Senate Librarian] Er, yes... I was just getting around to that. I was busy copying the appropriate scrolls just at the moment that your messenger found me.

*looks down at the wine stains on his toga*

Er... well... I... I'll see to it immediately!

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]:The First Consul's forebearance is gratefully acknowledged and I do not wish to test it further. I would merely ask any Senator who believes the order to exterminate Debeltos was constitutional to compare motions 10.1 and 9.1. Motion 10.1 made no mention of extermination. The situation with Gergovia was quite different, as extermination was explicitly called for in motion 9.1.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: On the matter of the constitution and exterminations, in order to avoid future disputes, I would like to make the following advance ruling:

Motions which authorise exterminations must be labelled as constitutional ammendments and will require a two-thirds majority to be passed. Even if the exterminations are one-off events, they are over-riding the constitution and this is something that should not be done lightly.

On an unrelated point, observant Senators may have noticed that we have adopted the unstated convention that drawn motions (equal votes for and against) are treated as failed motions. As with the ruling on exterminations, I mention this now to forestall possible future disputes.

This sounds like a sound ruling. I would advise senate members posing extermination proposals to do this in a seperate motion. Otherwise their 'capture city X' motion might be voted down as it did get a majority, but not a 2/3 majority. I would advise the senate speaker to add these rules, and the amendments, to the senate lore, if he has not already done so.

Unforetunatly, it seems we did not move fast enough in our bid to attempt an alliance with the Carthaginians, an action which I had strongly supported. In that respect, I would be willing, as soon as the senate deems me worthy, to lead a legion against the Republic of Carthage. I had supported a friendship with them, but if friendship is not within their interests, I will repel them from Rome's shores, and take the fight back to them.

Bravo, Master Chief! Err, I mean, senator. However, do you intend to defeat Carthage's vast armies with a single legion? That is folly. It is not like Alexander's campaign in Asia, against armies of ragtag peasants. The Carthaginians are well trained and well equipped, and even have the mighty elephants. I urge you to rethink on this issue, Senator Aemilius.