The Magnaura

Makedonios shrugs.

I totally agree. Constantinople seems like the perfect place for a few reasons.

Iakovos seems to turn slightly red at Efstathios remark about Antioch being "God forsaken".

I am sure Senator Efstathios you meant absolutely nothing by it. We all know Antioch's rich history of scholarship and culture. I think few would ever think of it as a backwater province of the Empire...

Iakovos sits down rather brusquely and begins writing furiously.

OOC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just got this PM:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

This may or may not have been intentional, but you do realize you have made the Mighty Emperor factory through the University? The fact that the Emperor can simply appoint someone to the Dean, whomever he likes, without any form of restriction, means he would simply select the Caesar, and thus cut off anyone from every really being Dean. In essence, I think the way it is proposed now, I will vote against it. I really want this, and I don't mind the Basileus picking, but I want at least a limitation on how he picks, or how many terms a single person can serve...

---

YLC is spot on. The biggest danger with the University is the authority trait. If this isn't handled properly, we will have a crazy powerful Basileus every single time. I thought I was avoiding this by preventing the Basileus from being Dean or a Scholar, but he is completely right that I have missed the problem with the Caesar. If the Caesar is appointed Dean even twice, we have pretty much guaranteed a maxed out authority Basileus. There are so many traits that add authority and it's almost guaranteed that the Casear can gain +1 authority for every trait he can alter. That's 2 per term as Dean and 1 per term as a Scholar. This is very unbalanced. There are several different ways to fix this, but I don't want to pick the solution myself. I am therefore going to propose the following additional CAs to fix the problem. Whichever receives the most votes will be used.

The following Charter Amendments are all mutually exclusive. All that receive the necessary seconds will be put to the vote. However, if more than one passes, only the one that receives the most votes will be enacted.

Charter Amendment 3.4: If Charter Amendment 3.3 passes, the following penalty will be added to the Caesar: (1) Cannot hold the ranks of Dean or Scholar.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This solution simply bars the Caesar from the University altogether.

Charter Amendment 3.5: If Charter Amendment 3.3 passes, the following penalty will be added to the Caesar: (1) Cannot hold the rank of Dean.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This bars the Caesar from the Dean spot, but still allows him to be a Scholar. This would give the Caesar a chance to alter 1 trait per term if he were chosen as a Scholar, but would prevent him from ever altering 2 in one term. Theoretically, the Caesar can still gain a lot of authority through this, but he would have to be consistently appointed as a Scholar by someone who wasn't himself or the Basileus, and he would have to live for a long time as the Caesar to reap great rewards from it.

Charter Amendment 3.6: If Charter Amendment 3.3 passes, the following penalty will be added to the Caesar: (1) Cannot gain or alter any traits through the University.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is similar to 3.4, in that it prevents the Caesar from gaining any traits from the University, however it still allows him to be the Dean and thus he still has the option of controlling who becomes Scholars.

Charter Amendment 3.7: If Charter Amendment 3.3 passes, the following penalty will be added to the Caesar: (1) Cannot gain or alter more than 2 traits through the University.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This ignores all positional problems and simply imposes a hardcap on trait alterations.

I like the CA 3.5
Why?
I just too!!

OOC: I was talking to someone earlier and realized that we have two different main player characters who aren't senators. Thought I propose this to allow them to be deans as well. :yes:

Charter Amendment 3.8: If Charter Amendment 3.3 passes, the word "Senator" will be changed to "player" in Basileus' power (18).

An open letter is presented to Caesar Ioannis Komnenos' aides, who enter it into the official records of the Senate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Caesar Ioannis Komnenos,

Your wisdom and courage to question this barbaric and unholy crusade is why I chose to follow the leadership of our great emperor and his royal family so long ago. Were there more men like you in the empire, I would question my decision to leave the Senate, but never question my devotion to you or your father.

It is fitting that you will one day lead our people, and I hope I am still alive to see such a magnificent day. I should note that I hope the reign of your father, our Basileos, will continue until my old age, however.

Those who would pick and choose a few small verses from the Bible out of context could argue any point they wish and claim Jesus himself called such a crusade. No one with any sense would even begin to describe Jesus as a warlike man who was sent here by God to start wars, or even participate in them.

When Jesus claimed he did not come to bring peace, IT WAS BECAUSE HIS MESSAGE OF PEACE WOULD OFFEND THOSE WHO WOULD WISH TO MAKE WAR! It was because his message of piety would offend the faithless! It was because his message of poverty and self-sacrifice would offend the rich and selfish! It was because his ideals would divide men, into those who love peace and those who make war upon the innocent.

Jesus NEVER suggested we should raise arms against those we disagree with.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me.

My dear Senators... taking one's cross is a way of saying "bearing one's burden". Following after Jesus, in the truest sense, would mean renouncing the ways of war and revenge, not raising our swords and sharpening our axes.

Can any of you who support this ridiculous crusade ever picture Jesus carrying a bloody weapon? If so, your minds have been poisoned and perverted by the skewed and irrational views of this Patriarch. Do not blindly follow like sheep, for you WILL be led to the slaughter.

Those who will go to Cairo and remove the Caliph from power, I beg of you only this:

Spare those who are innocent. DO NOT harm those who have not caused us harm. Bring this Caliph, in chains, before our emperor and have him tried for crimes against the Roman people. DO NOT execute him in the name of God or Jesus for crimes against Christianity.

This foul beast may be brought to justice, but it should be a civilized form of that, otherwise we are no better than the barbarians we wish to fight. Don't harm those who do not harm.

Caesar, my loyalty is with you and the Roman people, as always.

Salute, great leader.

Efstratios Monomachos, of the Order of the True Cross

I'd like to once again state my support, in principle, for CA 3.1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The two offices of Lord High Chancellor and Lord High Steward, as well as the Privy Seal, can be assigned by the Basileus to any non-family member. Only one of them may be assigned to each general, and each confers a +1 influence in Senate voting. If the Basileus chooses to keep them himself, there is no influence bonus.

But would like to propose CA 3.9

If CA 3.1 passes it will be amended as follows:

The two offices of Lord High Chancellor and Lord High Steward, as well as the Privy Seal, can be assigned by the Basileus to any Senator. Only one of them may be assigned to each general, and each confers a +1 influence in Senate voting if rank permits. If the Basileus chooses to keep them himself, there is no influence bonus

Rule 3.5 is reworded as such: 3.5 – Influence: Each Senator’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No Senator’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a Senator can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) Senator’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) Senator is married to a Byzantine Empire Princess (l) Senator possesses the title of Lord High Chancellor, Lord High Steward, or Privy Seal.

I second CA 3.5 and CA 3.8.

I would second CA 3.1a but I believe that is reserved for if the Caesar amends his own CA. I believe you would have to call your CA, CA 3.9.

And I am not quite sure why point K is changed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because I am rushed. Just noticed myself and will fix :P

There. Thanks PK!

I second CA 3.5, 3.8, and 3.9

I second CA 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9.

An assistant walks to Efstathios and gives him a peace of paper.
Efstathios reads it through and his face get's serious.

Senators,

I just received a message from my friends in Athens.
As you remember just recently a messenger came from Antiokheia, known for his rich culture and history.

Efstathios looks towards Iakovos and smiles a little bit..

The messenger said that a small Fatimid army was near the city.
Because that army is quite small it does not represent any danger to us.
Perhaps this thing was unnoticed by majority of Senators.
But now..

Efstathios raises the letter he had received..

My friends in Athens are writing about Fatimid navies that are heading towards their city.
Yes, you all heard right.. Navies..
These two things, Fatimid navies near Athens and their army near Antiokheia, can not be coincidence.
The Caliph is gathering information about us.
Where and when to strike.
And we are discussing whether the crusade is justified!
He threatens to kill all of the Christians in Cairo and now sends small forces to scout us..
This clearly is the sign that they want war..
We can not escape from it and I rather have it on their soil than ours..

Efstathios takes his seat..

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The two Fatimid Navies
https://i259.photobucket.com/albums/...es/FatNavy.jpg

I also second CA 3.5, CA 3.8 and CA 3.9.

I agree that war is upon us whether it be at Cairo or fighting on the shores of Greece, there is no escape.

Upon hearing yet another letter read into the record, Vissa grunts audibly in reply and returns to his brief perusement of the Bible.

This is a most odd and, frankly, disgraceful way to conduct a debate in the Senate. I will indulge in it only once more. A man who will not make himself present to support his words makes them hollow on his own, without need of opposition.

So, let us begin not in violence, but of intent. From Exodus, 7:5,

And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

Is this not our very goal, to bring forth and shelter our brothers living among the infidels? As God has gone before us, so we go as well.

And to return to the words of Jesus, Mark, 6:11,

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Those who reject the word of God, and reject the followers of the word of God, shall have punishment more terrible than those two vile cities of iniquity. Are we not the very instrument of God's justice against the Egyptians? So sayeth the Patriarch, our prime religious authority on earth. When Spartacus rose up with heresy and rebel armies against our empire we put him to death. The good senator should be wary of following in the same footsteps.

And again, in Jesus' own words, Mark, 9:42,

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

It is hard to argue that the Egyptians don't mean to offend the little believers among them, given that they have vowed to slaughter them. It hardly seems necessary to carry a millstone to war, but if we encouter them in the sea a great many Egyptians may be cast into it in the name of the Lord.

I trust I have made my point, gentlemen, and I will not further trouble you refuting the words of a man who fears to appear to speak them. The Crusade is a just and Godly duty, and any man who joins it is working God's will in the world.

:egypt:

I second CA 3.5

Ah, now CA 3.9 is something I can get behind. In fact it looks oddly familiar...

Anyways, this seems quite reasonable. The Emperor should be able to bestow a measure of influence upon his loyal allies. But CA 3.1 was just so overpowering as to give someone who has done essentially nothing the same automatic influence as someone who just spent 15 years being Megas.

It already has the required seconds but I whole heartedly support this bill.

I will also second CA 3.7 just so we have some options. Either CA 3.5 or CA 3.7 seems like a reasonable limit on the Caesar's ability to abuse the University system.

Fellow Senators,

Because our Empire have expanded and will expand to the Muslim lands then I will propose the following edict...

"Edict 3.4: The Megas Logothetes must keep at least one priest stationed in every region that has less than 60% Orthodox and where a church is built."

Seen how difficult it was for the Order to get the necessary supplies in Antioch, because of the large number of Muslims living there, I think that this Edict will help us convert the infidels to the true faith much faster. And this means that we would be able to support our armies and gather supplies that are needed without using force to get them...

Also.. I will second the Edict 3.3 proposed by Methodios.

I second edict 3.4

I second edict 3.4.

Senator Efstathios brings up an important point by mentioning the Order's logistical difficulties last term. This Crusade is going to run out of supplies unless we take steps beforehand to prevent it.

Since the Caesar has made quite clear that he will refuse to spend a single florin supporting this Crusade, and since others in this room are very much intent on voting for a man who will refuse to support the Crusade, we need to take action.

I strongly urge that someone put forth an edict requiring that 4 priests be sent by ship to Egypt immediately. 2 would go to Alexandria and 2 would go to Cairo.

The Order has some experience in trying to operate in a land populated by those of another faith. If we do not this, the Caesar will be able to strand all Crusaders and leave them completely without supplies. Which would effect horrible morale penalties upon our troops. I've seen it. My whole army melted away at Antioch at the mere sight of the enemy because they were not supplied. It fell upon me and my men to take on the enemy army by ourselves 120 to 1500.

The only way to prevent that from occurring again is to convert the population as soon as possible. Once Alexandria and Cairo are 50% Orthodox, then the local population will allow supplies to be procured by the army. If this doesn't happen, then the Crusader armies will eventually run out of supplies even if they take the settlements. Sitting in the settlements will allow them to prevent losing more supplies. But it will not help them gain the supplies back.

I strongly urge every man going on Crusade, or with House members going on Crusade to think long and hard before casting your vote for a man who is so hostile to the Crusade.

I agree with Makedonios.
We need to send some priests to Alexandria and Cairo to help the Crusade.
Being one of the Crusaders all edicts that could make this campaign easier are welcomed by me.

I am in favour of this, a CA I had in mind has been made redundant anyway.

I propose Edict 3.5: 4 priests shall be sent to Egypt, two to Alexandria, two to Cairo, as fast as possible preferably ahead of all crusading forces.

I second Edict 3.5.

If we are going to take control of Egypt from the Caliph, then we have a responsibility to bring the people there to Christ, even regardless of the also noble goal of ensuring our crusaders can attain the supplies they will need.

I also second CAs 3.5 and 3.7.

Standing and addressing the chamber.

Doesn't it strike this body of nobles as being somewhat absurd that we are proposing edicts that essentially send priests halfway across the region to convert the population of a nation in preparation for invasion!!??

Because lets be clear, this is an invasion of currently neutral nation. This is no 'Just' conflict we are starting. The more the logistics and realities of the situation present itself here in the Magnaura the clearer this is becoming.

The northern frontier is barely converted, while Antioch and the surrounding areas are in a similar situation. Wouldn't these priest be better served on our current borders?

OOC: Only 3 people have signed up for the Crusade so far. I urge more to do so. Remember, you MUST send me a PM if you wish to join. The deadline is the end of voting on Tuesday.

Efstathios looks at Apionnas at says..

A neutral nation would not send it's army an our lands.
A neutral nation would not send it's navies to threaten our ports.
A neutral nation would not try to kill every last people who have a different faith than theirs.

Efstathios shakes his head..

No .. Only a nation that wishes war does these things..
Sending priests, before any of the Crusaders get there, might delay the Caliphs plans to exterminate all Christians in Cairo and probably in all of the Fatimids lands.
If the number of the followers of the Christ would increase then we might get there before the Caliph can massacre them all.
I hope that he has not given the orders to do that already!

Raising his voice a little bit Efstathios says..

I second Edict 3.5

Looking towards Savvas he smiles and says...

And this was not yelling ..

Makedonios sighs.

Funny but I didn't hear this kind of resistance from Apionnas when the war with the Turks was proposed. And the Turks weren't about the massacre countless Christians and desecrate ancient Holy Places.

This is really simple Apionnas. Priests need to be sent to Egypt with the Crusaders or the Crusaders will run out of supplies. When that happens, it will be difficult for the Crusaders to win a battle at all against any substantial amount of forces.

If we are going to send these men on Crusade, then we must fully and completely support them.

And before you say Antioch is barely converted, keep in mind that Antioch currently has over 60% Orthodox in it's population. Antioch has become a case study in the logistical difficulties in ruling over populations of a different faith and it's lessons can, and should, be applied to making sure the Crusade succeeds.

A visibly shaking and distraught scribe hands the Basileus an updated list of legislation and then collapses. Aleksios reviews the list and speaks.

Hmmm, quite a long one, I think I will second CA 3.1.

The scribe moans in his stupor.

I'm sure that since the Patriarch saw fit to call this Crusade without consulting me or the Senate, he will be funding it with his own money. I am loath to support an enterprise that was not presented to the Senate for review or approval before it was introduced.

The Basileus sighs.

Not to mention the the possible repercussions of dividing our efforts even further and creating another enemy in the Muslim world. Still, it will be up to the Senate to determine how much support the Crusade will receive.

Aleksios pauses and speaks again.

Having reviewed the positions of the two candidates and the likely situation they will be facing during the next term, I have decided to endorse Caesar Ioannis for the position. Piety must be balanced with practicality, and duty to the Church with duty to the Empire, and, with all due respect to Savvas ek Militiou, I feel Ioannis is the best man to achieve that balance.

Aleksios continues.

My thoughts on some the proposed legislation:

Edict 3.1: I am opposed to a larger conflict with the Egyptians than needed by the Crusade.

Edict 3.2: I support this, though an occupation only policy will cause difficulties for the Crusaders.

Edict 3.3: I am opposed to this, Iasi is too far north to be defensible. Let one of our allies have it.

Edict 3.4 and Edict 3.5: While I wish to see conversion to the true faith, mandating priests in multiple territories handcuffs the Megas Logothetes. I oppose both Edicts.

I support CA 3.1. The Basileus is outside the House structure, whoever holds the office must have some way to reward loyalty.

I also support the creation of a University.

"Not only do I agree with the Basileus on his opinion on Edict 3.4, it is also worded incorrectly.

Am I not mistaken that if a new region with less than half the populace converted, and NO church, the Megas has no responsibility to send a priest there?"

The church requirement has been added because if there are no churches then we will soon be unable to recruit priests at all!
The Megas Logothetes can still send priests into newly conquered territories that have less than 60% and don't have churches.. I don't say that he can't.. But it would be the Megas decision whether he would do it or not..
Also.. If one priest is stationed in those provinces then it would be much easier to deal the Heretics as well..