The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations

While my feelings about the barbarian Gauls are not as strong as that of senator Augustus Verginius, I agree with his motion 5.5 nonetheless.

We have killed countless Gauls. Thousands upon thousands. The final tally will be made soon, but it is probably in excess of 5000 dead warriors.
At the moment they are crushed, utterly and decisively. Yet still I attacked them, even this spring, as they can rise just as quickly and threaten us again. They need to be beaten down consistently. The only time we can trust them is when they are on their knees. I say we raid their territory as if we were demons from the infernal hells themselves.
Not, my senators, because I am bloodthirsty. But because it must be done. If we merely guard our borders, the next generation will once again be faced with the horror and menace of hordes of thousands of wild tribesmen.

There are however some issues I would like to raise.

Even the savage tribesmen will one day realize the futility of resisting our might. Therefore I propose motion 5.6

Motion 5.6 : We will offer the Gauls the possibility of becoming a protectorate on a regular basis during our pogrom against them (offering any cities we capture and they have not retaken yet back, except Gergovia)

Also, there is a strategic (walled) town just west of Massilia. I propose motion 5.7

Motion 5.7 : We will strive to take possession of this single Gaul settlement Gergovia, as it will be an ideal base for our raiding of Gaul. This settlement we will keep.

I also vehemently oppose motion 5.2 as it now stands. It will be a ludicrously costly offensive, which will cripple our strained economy.

Motion 5.3 is one I would like to second, but again, we can hardly support the transportation fleet we have now.

Motion 5.4 I can sympathize with, but I do not see the point. We have walls, and armories already, and (almost) every city that can build roads has them already. A better proposal would be to stimulate the growth of our villages in Cispine Gaul so that they can build roads. This is why I stimulated colonization efforts there.

[QUINTUS]: With respect, I do not see why an expedition to Africa would be "ludicrously expensive". Consular I Army is ready to be deployed there. We have the transports. Looting Carthage should provide a tidy sum, if that is the wish of the First Consul. Alternatively, the trade and taxes from the large Carthaginian settlements should be sufficient to pay for the modest garrisons needed to occupy them.

Indeed, the tightness of our economy is largely due to the size of armed forces. They have doubled in upkeep over the past 5 years, while our income has risen somewhat less. I suspect many of our garrisons could be pruned and the manpower released used to support further conquest. It is not clear that we would have to recruit more men for an invasion.

On a point of information, I was pleased to learn that Numidia - as well as Iberia - is currently at war with Carthage. Do the vultures detect our foe is on her knees?

Gentlemen, I must ask some questions to Senator Augustus Verginus, regading his plan of action.

Why would attacking Gaul, a nation with countless hoards and deep forests to hide them in, be better for the Republic then attacking Carthage, whose population and society is more advanced then that of Gaul?

Troops are already ready to attack Carthage, and our finest General is ready to lead them, and you have already pointed out the distance from Rome to Gaul and the problem it would take to move our troops there, so how would an invasion of Carthage be any more costly then that of Gaul?

I thank you Senators, and hope you see the logic in attacking. And Senator Augustus Verginus, do you not see the reason in going south accross the sea? There is no reason to invade north, our finest troops are ready to invade Afrika, unless you think you are a more able gerneral then our friend Quintus is?

Gentlemen, there is an easy way to go about this.

We simply land Quintus' army near Carthage. Eventually the Carthaginians will send a large army out to stop us. Quintus meets them in glorious battle, defeat them as I know he will, and then the Carthaginians will sure for peace. We can get rich without having to worry about maintaining order in Afrika.

Motion 5.8: Quintus' Consul 1 Army is to land in Afrika near Carthage and engage the inevitable Carthaginian defense. If the Carthaginians are destroyed then a diplomat is to be sent to Carthage demanding a ceasefire for money.

No, Senators. If we are to attack Carthage, Iberia must be conquered first. Africa is too strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

Gentlemen, I must ask some questions to Senator Augustus Verginus, regading his plan of action.

Why would attacking Gaul, a nation with countless hoards and deep forests to hide them in, be better for the Republic then attacking Carthage, whose population and society is more advanced then that of Gaul?

Troops are already ready to attack Carthage, and our finest General is ready to lead them, and you have already pointed out the distance from Rome to Gaul and the problem it would take to move our troops there, so how would an invasion of Carthage be any more costly then that of Gaul?

I thank you Senators, and hope you see the logic in attacking. And Senator Augustus Verginus, do you not see the reason in going south accross the sea? There is no reason to invade north, our finest troops are ready to invade Afrika, unless you think you are a more able gerneral then our friend Quintus is?

---

Surely Senator, you have not forgotten that our ships can transport but a single unit each. Even if we were to assemble all 8 of our current ships and did not lose a single one in combat with the enemy, we would not be able to transport Senator Quintus and his army to the shores of Carthage in a single season. Do you really think it wise to leave a mere 8 cohort force stranded without hope of relief and without any means of retreat when there are two and a half full Consular sized Carthaginian armies within a single season's march of Carthage? Perhaps you have faith that Senator Quintus can conquer of all of Africa with such a small force. Do you also have faith that the aging Senator, who is nearly 60, will not die of natural causes while on campaign, thus leaving our armies leaderless and without hope of personal direction in combat? (No disrespect intended to the honorable Quintus.)

As for transporting an army to Gaul, this would take no more time than such an expedition to Carthage. However, since Massilia is secured and the river crossings guarded by Legio III, our forces would be safe while they waited for their full strength to arrive over the course of multiple seasons.

Yes, ravaging Gaul would be less profitable than ravaging Carthage. However, what have the Carthaginians done to deserve such devestation? This war started as a mere trade dispute. We have annexed many of their provinces and defeated countless numbers of their armies. What crime have they committed that is so vile as to deserve wholesale slaughter? If you instead propose occupying their cities, my manifesto makes my opinion on that perfectly clear.

The Gauls on the otherhand are beasts. They started this war by invading our lands. They sacked Rome barely one hundred years ago. They do not understand civilized life and they have no respect for Roman values. They are deserving of a bloody end.

Afrika is too strong? Exactly how limitless are their armies? Consul Quintus has repeatedly destroyed Carthaginian armies in the last ten years, most notably stunning victories at Aleria and Sardinia recently! I think they will have one army at most deployed and ready for a fight.

After all, they are also engaged against Numidia and I believe, Iberia. Carthage has limits to its power. They are weak now.

Senators,

My final report is finished and I will briefly outline our situation in more detail.

https://img114.imageshack.us/img114/...0spring4ai.jpg

The republic of Carthage is in dire straits as they are now at war with the kingdom of Numidia, Iberia and the republic of Rome. Even worse, they are losing ground in this war to the Numidians, their former vassals. Their only allies are Gaul. They are in deep trouble, but they have lost the disadvantage of a multi-front war.

The Gauls are allied with the republic of Carthage, Illyria and Thrace and at war with the republic of Rome. This war is turning our very badly for them. They've lost half of what they had in men and land.

The Greek cities are allied with the kingdom of Macedon, the kingdom of Pontus and the kingdom of Bactria and they are at war with the republic of Rome. They are doing very well. Their military is the strongest around.

The Illyrians are allied with the Ptolemaic empire, Gaul and Thrace. They are at war with the kingdom of Macedon. They are having a great time as they are slowly defeating the kingdom of Macedon together with Thrace and they are recovering their lost ground.

The Thracians are allied with Gaul, Illyria and the Sarmatians. They are at war with the Germans and the kingdom of Macedon. Thrace has become a local superpower and stands a good chance of defeating the Germans and the Macedonians. After which, who will be their next victim ?

The Iberians have ties with no one and are at war with the republic of Carthage, but they have become as powerful as Thrace. So now we have a superpower to our west and east.

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/62...rritory4vd.jpg

As you can see, our territory has increased dramatically once again. Where we were once a small citystate, we have now become the most powerful state in our vicinity. Unfortunately, all this territory has to be defended and as such our military has had to increase dramatically as well.

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/78...ilitary9zn.jpg

And so, even tough we have invested 70-80 % of our budget in financial improvements every season, we can see how this has been affecting our financial situation.

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/61...nancial6vg.jpg

https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/31...nancial2er.jpg

On the positive side, our estimated profits are increasing once more.

Military losses on all sides :
Roman killed or wounded : 1339

Gaul dead : 8555
Republic of Carthage dead : 3662
Rebel dead : 250

Total enemy dead : 12467

I would advise any future consul not to lower our military complement. Seven legions is the minimum military force I would recommend for our nation's size and threats. Men will say we can disband some of the legions, but what if, such as is now occuring, a rebellion breaks out ? A legion might have to leave a border unguarded, if that was feasible to begin with, to march for months on end to reach the rebels. Also, there is the question of reserves. If we do happen to suffer a dramatic military defeat we will have the spare forces to cope with it.
We can not expand much further northward even if we wished, for the simple reason that we cannot build roads untill we develop Cispine Gaul. This will take a very long time to do. Without roads, a distant settlement would be almost undefendable as we could not resupply it reliably. We could expand south, but in addition to the forces required to capture territory there, we would also need troops to guard it. We can hardly afford to do this, except by abandoning our economic development. Here also the problem of resupplying our troops would be a major problem.
For those who would say that the sale of loot from the captured cities would pay for this, I agree, but then we would be left with another bunch of captured and worthless moneydraining cities. I would not recommend this. I do advocate a plundering expedition. Whether north or south does not matter to me greatly. Our more dangerous enemy is to the north, our more wealthy plunder lies in the south. I suggest we strike north.

The one thing I would like to make the senate aware of is that the republic of Carthage and the Gauls are not our greatest threats at the moment. Iberia and Thrace are.

I wish you wisdom, and I hereby reliquish my symbols of office to the senate. It was an honour to serve the state.

OOC : savegame 270-2-start.zip

I have just looked through The First Consul's report. Can you not see the massive Gallic army just outside our reach? As I am sure you can all see, the Carthaginian homeland is lightly defended. I am confedent that Quintus with only seven units could take Carthage from the enemy. It does, after all, only have a five unit garrison and is leader-less! I urge my fellow senators to support an attack on Carthage, it is clearly the easier and richer of our two prospect targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

I have just looked through The First Consul's report. Can you not see the massive Gallic army just outside our reach? As I am sure you can all see, the Carthaginian homeland is lightly defended. I am confedent that Quintus with only seven units could take Carthage from the enemy. It does, after all, only have a five unit garrison and is leader-less! I urge my fellow senators to support an attack on Carthage, it is clearly the easier and richer of our two prospect targets.

---

Clearly, Senator, you did not 'investigate' the area around Thapsus where Carthage has two and a half full Consular sized armies. Nor did you 'investigate' the Gallic territories, or you would have seen that other than the large army on our border, the Gauls have no other significant military force at all except for a large garrison in their capital. Nor did you examine our intelligence reports on the Gallic and Punic forces, or you would have seen that the Gallic army is composed almost entirely of unarmored, untrained spearmen while the Punic armies are largely composed of armored and trained phalanxes. Nor did you keep up to date on intelligence reports, or would have noticed that not only does Carthage have a general leading it's garrison, but two of it's defending units are elite Sacred Band infantry, whom even our own Triarii rightly fear. Nor did you even look at the military power chart that was provided by Senator Aemilius, for if you had you would have seen that Carthage has nearly double the number of men under arms as does Gaul.

Tell me Senator, when concluding that Carthage is a weaker and easier target than Gaul, exactly what did you look at?

Most senators prefer wealth, even if costs the lives of thousands of Romans. The Gauls have been the major threat, as they have invaded Italy three times. Carthage, on the other hand, has only invaded Corsica. Which of the two, noble Senators, is more dangerous?

Could you post screenshots of the actual campaign map, instead of just the minimap?

Our empire finds itself larger and more powerful than it ever has before yet somehow we are never quite powerful enough.

Now again we senators must choose who will lead us over the coming five years. These five years will arguably be the most difficult our armies and our empire has yet faced. No longer are we simply battling the far-flung outlying provinces of our enemies but now it has come time strike for the heart and strike we must.

I will here upon this floor offer myself to the will of the republic and her people as a candidate to become her sword and her shield as the next Consul.

I believe that it is best that we leave as few armies unused as possible. Our treasury is taxed enough that it does not need the burden of paying troops who sit and rest and do not work at their trade as every other citizen does.

Some senators believe it is best to strike the Carthaginians who seem beset from all sides. The once proud empire is crumbling and it has now been reduced to its core homelands. Yet it grips tightly to its once glory fights savagely with the hope of reattaining it.

Some senators believe it is best to strike the barbaric Gauls who we so recently pushed back across the Alps. They now sit and brood in their forests and it is true that they will never cease their attacks against us as long as we still control those lands which they claimed their own.

I on the other hand believe that we should attack both. Our armies are stronger and more numerous than they have ever been before and we possess more than enough men to wage a successful war on both fronts. It is very true that both enemies are exceptionally strong but our generals have already shown their prowess in battle against more enemy armies than I care to remember and I believe them and the men under their command more than able to take the war to the enemy heartlands.

You may ask how I propose to invade Carthage with only a fleet of eight ships. I very well know that eight units cannot hold out against forty. These armies of Carthage however are stationed around their capital where they rightly believe our blow will fall. In this assumption they are sorely mistaken. We shall sail from Melite directly south to the outlying Carthaginian provinces. Eight ships can ferry an entire consular army from Melite to Afrika before the massive armies stationed around Carthage can even march halfway to our camp. From there it is a simple march with a consular army up the coast defeating any armies and conquering any cities that we come across until finally the Carthaginian home and fortress of Carthage herself is made subject to our battering rams. Indeed such an endevour would take quite a bit of time but we are not unaccustomed to patience and perseverance

In Gaul I would propose a modest conquest. The pace of the invasion would be cautious and with great care as we could not afford a devastating Gaulish ambush. Beyond the Alps, the forests are vast and thick providing ample opportunity for hiding. Our loyal spies will be our crutch in this treacherous land as we advance from city to city as frog would hop from pad to pad.

Our main thrust would be against the Carthaginians with our invasion of Gaul being supplementary and not entirely necessary. New lands will of course brings more incomes into our treasury and this is something we very much need. Within Italy we must continue to build up our newly acquired lands in the North as they have yet to reach their full potential.

Note that I will note increase the size of our military unless an extreme need arose. I would continue to recruit troops only to maintain the current strength of our forces and to garrison any newly captured settlements.

You perhaps may be wondering what makes me as a man better suited for our situation than other candidates. Militarily I have fought and won against both Carthage and the Gauls. I have seen with my own eyes the capabilities of both of our foes. I have heard the horrible Gaulish warchant issuing from the depths of the forest that is said to have driven lesser men insane. I have charged down the glittering spears of the Carthaginian phalanx. Financially I am still widely regarded as without peer in all our empire in the area of successful management. Where some men have spent their entire lives with only a sword in their hand and others have spent theirs with only a pencil, I have spent mine with both and now I am offering my services to the republic that I may benefit it and her people.

What follows is the manifesto of Tiberius Coruncanius.

I will once more offer the Senate the option of an invasion of Africa. The fleet needs to be augmented with a few warships, but is nearly ready in its current state. A force of consular army strength in Africa would be more than sufficient to defeat the Carthaginians, and we already have sufficient troops to assemble such a force without depleting garrisons. An invasion of Africa would warrant a halt in the Gallic offensive, for it is never wise to fight a two-front war, and Masilia is the perfect place to do that. If the Gauls wish to accept a ceasefire, then so should we, but that is merely a formality. In any case, a sufficient defensive force would be left at Masilia. Now you know what I would do if I were elcted Consul, and I will now move on to explaining why I believe it is the correct course of action.

The Gauls are no longer a significant threat. They have been pushed far from Rome, across the mountains. Their armies are of low quality, we destroyed most of them, and we have an easily defensible position. Furthermore, there is nothing of great value in transalpine Gaul, and to get anything out of those settlements, we would have to spend much money developing them. For those reasons, it is no longer wise to expand into Gaul, and is very easy to securely hold the border.

The Carthaginians are completely different, however. Their navy still freely sails the seas. As we have seen, they can land large armies wherever they want. Because they're unambitious and not very tactically smart, they chose to do that in Corsica, but they could have just as easily done that in Italy or Sicily. Their armies are of high quality and numerous, and we have a completely undefensible position, as we cannot challenge them on the seas. Now, one thing we could do is destroy their navy, but that would be expensive, risky, and time-consuming, as we'd need a mighty fleet. However, we already have a mighty army, and we would instead do better to attack them on land. Furthermore, African settlements are of much greater value. They would be easier to develop, and have potential for trade.

As far as other things go, I would make a maximum effort to upgrade the fleet. Thanks to Aemilius, we have the necessary facilities in Syracuse. I would put them to work immediately. With only Syracuse working, the fleet upgrade process will be slow, but that will mean that our economy won't be suddenly drained. In time, we will have a powerful fleet. However, I do not plan to postpone the invasion due to a lack of heavy ships.

We have dealt with Gaul, and it is now time to stike at Carthage. But we must not merely make a half effort. Our strike must be decisive, and we must not waste further resources on the Gauls. I believe we can achieve a swift victory over Carthage.

[QUINTUS]: It is good once again to see such clear differences in the programmes for candidates for First Consul.

On another matter, after reflection, I have decided to ammend:

Motion #5.1: This House grants First Consul Lucius Aemilius a triumph. This is on account of his successful conquest of Cisalpine Gaul, Massilia and the island settlements of Melte, Aleria and Caralis with relatively little loss. It notes the generous role of the First Consul in providing opportunities for other members of the Lower House to give battle on Rome's behalf.

If anyone is unconvinced by this motion, I urge them to look at the record of battles under the First Consul's rule. Our forces have slain over 12,000 enemies - twice what was done under my own rule. The fact that the First Consul often delegated command is even more to his credit, as it ensures that we have a cadre of battle hardened senior generals to call upon in years to come.

I hope Senator Verginius will still second this motion.

I still require an additional seconder for both motion 5.1 and 5.2.

A messenger arrives in the senate:

“Noble Senators of the Republic, I ask leave to read a message from Senator Decius Curtius who is in Afrika at this time.”

….the messenger waits a short time until nodded to proceed by the Senate Speaker. Unrolling the parchment he begins to read in a clear concise voice….

“Senate of Rome, I stand here in the desert after leaving a broken city. Carthago’s population are full of fear and all about me I hear whispers of a familiar name – Quintus – Quintus the Destroyer, Quintus the Devastator, Quintus the Murderer…….all these names I have heard the local plebeians mention in lowered tones.

Unrest grows as does they panic, the population is only held in check with the iron grip of King Hasdrubal and his secret police force.

The greatest generals Carthage had to put to field have been killed in short order by Former Consul Quintus and his victorious Legions. All I see around me is fear of Impending doom and Quintus’s march into Carthago itself!

King Hasdrubal continues his reign helped not only by his secret police but by his navy. The Navy continues to heap scorn upon us and nourish his delusions of grandeur with their assurances that they can transport what remains of his armies to any part of our lands and strike us a death blow.

I continue to investigate the details of what remains of the Carthage land-based military forces but I ask the good Senate to support any motions that would bring the Carthage Plebeians greatest fears to life.

Carthage is weak and in great fear, I ask that we strike at Carthago with great speed.

I beg the Senates apologies that I am not aware of our own military and financial ability at this time and that I presume much in my call for invasion. All I can say is that IF we wish Carthage to no longer be a threat in the future it is within the next year or so that we must strike her and defeat her.

I am prepared to undertake whatever missions in these lands that the Consul deems required to further aid such a choice and I dare say that, accompanied as I am by the good natured Placus Laelius, the pair of us can do much to path the way for such an undertaking.

The Senates Servant,

Decius Curtius”

The messenger finishes and re-rolls the scroll……

….”I am required to ask if there is any response to this message and I will await the Senates pleasure before returning in the next two days with such response as the Senate deems is needed for my master.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

[QUINTUS]: I hope Senator Verginius will still second this motion.

---

Senator Quintus, you can most certainly count on my continuing support.

Senators,

Last night I was haunted by dreams of war. I saw again the deaths of women and children that I have witnessed these last few years. I am convinced that the Gods send me these dreams as a warning that needless bloodshed should be avoided in our campaigns. I know some men call me hugely superstitious, but nevertheless I shall be forced to withdraw my support for motion 5.5 unless it is reformulated to :

Motion 5.5: For the duration of the 270 - 265 Consulship only, the Consul may massacre enslave the population of any Gallic settlement he wishes and knock down all barbaric religious structures, provided that the settlement is abandoned after the deed is done.

If we enslave the Gauls we will be doing them a kindness as we take them into a civilized culture and we need the extra population badly. I see no harm in bringing them to a better life. I would also suggest changing the sentence all barbaric religious structures to all barbaric structures, but this is not a big issue for me. If senator Verginius will not reformulate this motion I will propose a motion myself. I ask the senator if he is willing to make these changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

[QUINTUS]: First Consul Aemilius, I believe it would be better if you proposed an alternative motion to 5.2, as that was clearly intended to be a mandate for conquest.

I would also note that extermination of settlements is an act so extreme that this house was constituted with a strict prohibition on its commission. Only reluctantly, did I consent to Carthage being exempted from that prohibition and indeed I have ammended motion 5.2 so that so severe a measure is not mandated. Carthage is a great city and a great prize - few other cities will ever rival its size or potential. To take and then abandon such a prize seems perverse.

---

I agree. There is much more profit to be made from a city than from a graveyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Senator Swordsmaster, on motion 5.4, I believe much of Dalmatia is occupied by Macedon. As such I would class your proposal along with that of taking the war to Greece as a step too far at the current moment.

---

This is why I requested an updated version of the maps. I do not wish to take war to Greece, and therefore I will not insist in the occupatio of Dalmatia. I stand by my request of building a fleet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Also on motion 5.3, I would note that all settlements anywhere in the known world that are capable of having walls already have them in some form. The lack of defensible walls is a fact of geography, not a decision of ours.

---

Those cities unable to protect themselves need protection, so I will amend the motion to include forts to protect those cities that cannot build their own defences.


These are the amended versions of the motions cited:

Motion 5.3: Build a fleet. This means we need to support one. All possible improvements should be built in Italy to support a greater number of ships and soldiers.

Motion 5.4: Consolidate. We need roads. Walls. Armouries. Cities that cannot build walls, should be within 1 turns marching distance of a strongly garrisoned fort.

King? My dear senators, he is most definitely not a king. In spite of the Carthaginians' difference in ways to ours, they are still a republic, if less so than ours.

Senators, I disagree about the enslaving of Gauls. Do us Romans truly want the filthy barbarians dirtying our splendid countryside of Italia and our civilised brothers in Sicily? Also, we need not destroy all barbaric structures, as these can be refined by our expert craftsmen, trained in Rome herself. I propose that we batter the Gauls into subjugation, forcing the status of protectorate upon them. If they refuse to comply, we will be justified in the annexation of Gaul, or at least the seizure and extermination of their key settlements of Georgovia and Alesia.

I must agree with my son. Destroying settlement and killing its populace is unnecessarily harsh. It is true that the looting may provide us with small amounts of immediate gold but in the long run we are only hurting ourselves as eventually these settlements will no doubt be ours. Much more can be gained over time by the occupation of settlements and the generation of new tax incomes. Also this allows us to spread out the burden of military upkeep so that we can free up more funds from our existing settlements.

I do not belive in abandoning a city unless strategically necessary. If our blood has been spilled on its streets then it is ours. I will not say that the blood of our men has been given in vain. Also the Gaulish land beyond the Alps is treacherous and I would not risk crossing it several times to simply "raid" a town once or twice. The risk of a complete ambush is far too prevalent and we have been lucky so far in that respect. As long as we are in Gaulish territory we must stay within the safety of cities as long as possible and moving only in force and with a defined purpose.

At this point I would also like to give my wholehearted support to Quintus' motion 5.1. Lucius is very deserving of this triumph.

[QUINTUS]: I would like to speak in support of our Princeps Senatus elect, Publius Laevinius, as the choice of next First Consul. I urge Senators to vote for this candidate for three reasons.

First, his manifesto is the most ambitious and exciting of all those proposed. We have many fine members of the Lower House eager to see battle. Operations in Gaul and Africa offer the most opportunities for these members to see battle. While the initial invasions may largely be led by the First Consul, other Legates and Tribunes would be called upon to defend our new conquests and garrison our homelands. The shrewd Laevinius is surely correct to say that it is a great waste to see our large armies in mere garrison duty. Even more so, it would be a waste to see our fine generals so frustrated.

Second, Legate Laevinius's battles against the Gauls have shown tremendous tactical ability. I know we have many commanders of great talent in the Senate but I doubt any could have done better than Laevinius. I certainly blanched when I heard of the gestatae and Chosen warriors marching in their hundreds for the ford outside Massilia. And the good Legate had only a mere legion with no alae to hold them. Based on his consistent performance, I have no doubt in Laevinius's ability to strike into the heart of Gaul - possibly even conquering it entirely during his term in office.

Third, the Princeps Senatus elect has showed great wisdom and understanding on matters of grand strategy. For example, it was he who identified Massilia as a valuable chokepoint in our war on Gaul. His plan for the invasion of Africa is very well thought through. And his recent comments on the folly of the raiding strategy proposed by some only add to my great esteem for his judgement.

Senators, the other candidates are also most worthy individuals and I do not doubt that they will serve Rome well as First Consuls in due course. But now is the moment for Publius Laevinius and I urge you to rally around his standard!

Senators, this constant warring and need for bloodshed has me wondering what makes us better than the Gauls and other such barbarians?

When will our brave legions return home? I'm sure many have sons and daughters that they have never even met. When will these men be reunited with their families? I seem to be the only person longing for a time where we can have peace.

Yet still, you all call for an invasion of the never-ending woodland of Gaul, an invasion of the deserts of Afrika. Why must we conquer these worthless places? Italia is the perfect place to build a villa (perhaps even a vineyard too), so why not build one and enjoy life now that Rome is strong.

I gather that our economy is in a worse state than 5 years ago? Surely something can be interpreted from this. Constant conquest does not fill our coffers as much as some of you may think. I hope for a few years of peace in which we can concentrate on building up trade, encouraging prosperity but most of all, enjoying our lives in the wealth we are likely to gain from a time of peace.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: May I remind the Senate that we currently have eight motions tabled but only one has two seconders. The deadline for proposing motions is in 24 hours. Unless some existing motions are seconded, we will have a very quiet period of voting.

Senators. I would like to unveil this Tapestry that I have commisioned in honor of our two previous Consuls Quintus and Lucius. The tapestry displays their expansion of our empire. Quintus' gains are obviously in RED and Lucius' gains are in BLUE. I look forward to updating the tapestry for all future Consuls.

https://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6251/consul24aw.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Tell me Senator, when concluding that Carthage is a weaker and easier target than Gaul, exactly what did you look at?

---

I have read the report from Decius Curtius, our spymaster in Afrika. He has pointed out that if we delay, Carthage will only grow stronger. Why should we not attack her now, while she is broken apart by wars in Numidia and Iberia? Carthage is a strong nation; if we delay she will grow stronger and take Iberia and Numidia. Would you rather attack Carthage now, while she is still small, or later, when she has all of Afrika and Iberia under her control? Just because Carthage is powerful does not mean we should not fight her. In fact, it should push Carthage up on our lists of possible conquests. Are my fellow representatives of Rome frightened by a challenge? If so then attack Gaul, and impose your will on weak barbarians. If you want glory and more power for the Republic, then we must take Carthage and teach her citizens the honor of Romans. I urge my fellow Senators to support motion # 5.2, it is the most sensible motion tabled. Carthage is home to far larger cities then Gaul, I say let Gaul sit beyond the Alps, let Gaul fight Spain and threaten Carthage even more. Carthage is our strongest adversary; we must strike hard and fast as soon as possible!

Senator, why would we send our legions into Gaul, when a larger more powerful foe is sitting at our backdoor?

Senator Publius Laevinius, that is truly a magnficent gift to this house. I only fear that it will incite future consuls to reckless conquests in order to see their colour on that map. Nevertheless, I would ask our senate librarian to find an hornoured spot for this tapestry in the senate library.

I applaud the quality of the men who have stepped forward.

Augustus Verginius, the coolheaded general who survived Lucco's ambush. He plans no more conquests, but punitative expeditions that will fill our empty coffers and submit the Gauls. I see his wisdom, but worry about wanton slaughter.

Tiberius Coruncanius, the man who halted the Gaul advance into our lands at Arretium. He thinks it is time to overthrow Carthage, but sees no need to go to war in Gaul. A middle position between the other two candidates and realistic.

Publius Laevinius, the stalwart commander who crushed Meriadoc at Massilia. He plans the conquest of Carthage, and Gaul as well. I applaud his zeal and ambition, but doubt the feasability.

The truth is, my lords, that each of these candidates agendas is possible. Our army is at peak strength, and our economy weak, but it is still growing.

The ambitious plans of Publius Laevinius will break our fragile economy. The conquest of Carthage will be expensive, and if we are victorious, the rebellious cities we will have conquered will offer but little revenue due to the high unrest which will plague them. At the same time undertaking the conquest of Gaul borders on lunacy. Our armies will spread, weaken and die in the vastness of the Gaul forests or across the sea in Afrika. We will be unable to supply them decently and will run risks of rebellion in the provinces left undefended. After five years, our economy will be in shambles and our armies weakened even if we succeed in all these conquests.

Tiberius Coruncanius is a better planner. He wants to strike a bold and decisive strike to shatter Carthage forever. We can do this, my lords, but I think it is a futile waste of our menpower and resources. The logistics will be very complex, dangerous and expensive. We will need to send vast amounts of troops to secure victory and who will guard our homeland in the meantime ? We cannot afford yet more troops.

So, with reservations, I support the wisdom of Augustus Verginius, who understands that we have much more to fear from Iberia and Thrace than we have from Carthage. He sees the moment is NOW to make the Gauls submit to our power. Hundreds of Romans have lost their lives in the wars against Gaul. Will we neglect their sacrifce to go after Carthage, while the hordes gather once more ?
NO, I say ! Let Augustus Verginius have his way and pulverize the remains of the Gaul nation ! Eventually, they will submit to a protectorate and the threat will be ended forever. We will not need to conquer their useless and undefendable lands, and they will pay protection money to Roma. While he is doing this, he will strengthen our country. We have five years of carefree time now. It will most likely not come quickly again. Let us use this time to make our country the strongest in Europe.
The one man who sees the wisdom of this course of action is Augustus Verginius. I will stand by him, and encourage all of you to do the same for the sake of our country, not for the sake of glory on the battlefield.

https://img117.imageshack.us/img117/...lection6bj.jpg

I would also like to ask the senate speaker to summarize all the motions and their current supporters for the sake of encouraging debate.

Hail Roma !

[SENATE SPEAKER]:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds

I would also like to ask the senate speaker to summarize all the motions and their current supporters for the sake of encouraging debate.

---

Normally the scribes will only summarise motions that have the requisite two seconders. However, given that none of the motions (apart from 5.1) have two seconders, I have complied with your request for the reason you give. The list of motions may be found in the first post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds

The ambitious plans of Publius Laevinius will break our fragile economy. The conquest of Carthage will be expensive, and if we are victorious, the rebellious cities we will have conquered will offer but little revenue due to the high unrest which will plague them. At the same time undertaking the conquest of Gaul borders on lunacy. Our armies will spread, weaken and die in the vastness of the Gaul forests or across the sea in Afrika. We will be unable to supply them decently and will run risks of rebellion in the provinces left undefended. After five years, our econmy will be in shambles and our armies weakened even if we succeed in all these conquests.

---

I dont believe so.

I believe senator that your strategy for expansion was rather cautious. You expanded only when knowing full well that victory was guaranteed. While this is a commendable strategy it is by no means necessary. We have all seen and heard of what our armies and generals can accomplish and I see no reason for this trend to suddenly stop. Our current standing armies are more than capable of defeating the standing armies of both Gaul and Carthage at the same time.

I also realize that despite your optimism the gauls and the carthaginians will continue to attack our lands on a regular basis. You back a candidate who proposes raiding into Gaulish territory but tell me how much gold do you really believe this will bring to our treasury? The Gauls control only six more cities worth conquering. Of these only three of them are within reach to raid and then return to the safety of the Alps in a reasonable amount of time. Granted the first time you raid these cities you may carry away thousands of denarii in gold but what after that? Will you continue to raid the same cities over and over and every time after bringing home only a few coins? The Gauls will not stand idly by. They will fight our armies and ambush them and wittle them down every time. And for what? To give the treasury a single quick golden high that disappears thereafter? The gauls cannot rebuild their cities overnight. Indeed they probably will not be able to rebuild them to their current level until well after this coming five year term.

So you raid the cities once and you get your gold. The Roman casualties are justifiable. Then what? Raid the burnt out ruins again taking more casualties every time? Will you bring the ashes back to Rome and fill the treasury with them?

The Gauls will not submit to becoming a protectorate just as we would never subject ourselves to such humiliation. The only way to eliminate the Gaul threat permanently is to crush it and take its land. Or would you prefer every Consul to defend the Alps against the constant Gaul attacks to the end of time? I dont know about the other senators but I would quickly grow weary of such constant attacks and casualties without any effort to alleviate the situation.

In short this strategy of raiding the Gaulish towns would work well for perhaps a year at which point it would fail miserably because there would be no more towns left worth raiding. It is the same with farmers. If they planted too many crops on their land they may reap the rewards of an exceptionally bountiful harvest the first year but for the next several years the land will be wasted and the farmer will be unable to harvest any more crops from it. So while the farmer enjoys the plenty the first season, he suffers for years afterward while his neighbor who takes care to regulate his planting, though he does not reap such large rewards immediatly, finds that a normal harvest every year is much more desirable and much more lucrative.

Father, I congratulate you in managing to get some skilled Greeks to put together this masterpiece! This will surely show the world that even in so new an art is Rome the greatest!

Back to business. Firstly, to answer my father's query. I believe Brother-in-law Verginus' aim is to cripple Gaul and force a protectorate status, which they might we accept. You must remember, my father, that these savages have not the honour of us Romans, and should not be viewed as equals. Even if they do not submit, it will destroy another threat to our security, and enable us to use more of our armies against the mighty Phoenicans. The world must first see that stinking barbarians will be crushed, and then they shall fear us. In this fear, we will ben able to stride into the Phoenican heartlands, to take down the quivering Carthaginians when the time comes.

Your son Decivs Laevinivs sees the wisdom of the plan to force the Gauls to submit now that they are weak and the Cartheginians occupied.
Some interesting points to ponder :
In three years we have slain 8500 Gauls on the battlefield. Yet their armed strength has only dropped by 4000, and is again on the increase. Even worse, the quality of their troops is increasing, with chosen warriors and gestaete appearing more often in their ranks. They will have regained their strength in just three years and probably will be even stronger then than they were three years ago. We cannot wait for that.
If we occupy Gaul, we will have increased the length of our border by a factor of ten. Even worse, we will share those borders with the two most powerful nations in Europe, Thrace and Iberia, and the ferocious Germans. If they turn on us, we cannot possibly defend against them. We would be fighting a 2-front war, with no supply routes back to our recruiting ground as we can not build roads in Cispine Gaul for quite some time. Reinforcements would take years to arrive. Just the Thracians alone outnumber us comfortably. We will lose large amounts of troops and will eventually end up where we are now, behind defensible border.
To attempt the conquest of Gaul, instead of her submission, is folly.
And if, in your worse case scenario, the Gauls will never submit, we will have gained their riches and looted their towns. We can retreat whenever we wish a leave behind an enemy who will no rise again in three years, but in thirty years or perhaps never. Then we might turn our attention to Carthage knowing that our north is free from at least the Gaul threat.

My main issue with Laevinus' plan is that he wishes to split his focus between two theaters. This means that each theater gets only half the resources. It means we cannot overwhelm the enemy, and it slows down our progress. It introduces extra risk, and makes it easier for us to overextend. What if, when one army is in Africa and one deep in Gaul, the Illyrians or Thracians invade from the east? What if one of the two armies needs immediate reinforcements? This plan is far too risky, and I don't believe it is strategically sound.

The plan of Verginius is completely the opposite, it is not decisive enough. He plans to plunder the Gallic lands, but while that may boost our treasury, what strategic value is there to it? In 5 years, we will be at the same place we are now. He would have a mighty army at his disposal, but would be content with making limited raids. He complains about the treasury, but it is exactly the large army that is very expensive. Unless the army is put to use, that money is wasted. I also find his plan short sighted. While plunder gets us some immediate money, conquest gets us money in the future as settlements are developed. And finally, I find his extermination policy deplorable. Any Gallic man pointing his sword at Rome should be slain at once, but what purpose is there to slaughtering women and children, other than to satisfy the Senator's greed? Verginius makes little mention of what military objectives this would accomplish. He seems to be driven by greed and his hatred of the Gauls. However, his pacifist and anti-expansionist policies prevent him from actually conducting a decisive conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

My main issue with Laevinus' plan is that he wishes to split his focus between two theaters. This means that each theater gets only half the resources. It means we cannot overwhelm the enemy, and it slows down our progress. It introduces extra risk, and makes it easier for us to overextend. What if, when one army is in Africa and one deep in Gaul, the Illyrians or Thracians invade from the east? What if one of the two armies needs immediate reinforcements? This plan is far too risky, and I don't believe it is strategically sound.

---

I wish Tiberius that you would look at our current standing armies before trying to make your arguments. I wonder how well you would do as first consul when you now dont even know where our military stands.

The fact is that our previous first consul fought a two-front war. What is so new risky and risky about my proposal except that now the two fronts are slightly different.

As far as standing armies goes. In the south we have a consular army and a legion ready to march at a moment's notice. In the north we have three standing legions all in fighting condition. One of those legions is practically a consular army. Now tell me that we do not have enough men.

Granted we do not outnumber the enemy but judging from any of the battle statistics we have had our men on average count for over 12 enemy men. THIS IS A HUGE ADVANTAGE THAT MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS.

Indeed I would only need two of these three armies to successfully invade Gaul leaving a third full legion on our eastern border to alleviate your fears of Illyria (who by the way currently has three provinces and is fighting for its life against Macedon) and Thrace (who is currently very neutral toward us and very much occupied with its own two-front war against Macedon and Germania). Iberia as well is occupied with Carthage and shows no intention of hostility against us. Your complete lack of knowledge in regards to the diplomatic situation around us rather astounds me. You throw accusations without first researching their validity.

By the way. Both of these wars do not constitute something that absolutely must be done. We are no longer fighting to keep our country alive. Even if we lose a major battle then what? We lose a province or two in Africa or Gaul at most. Oh no. Pyrrhus is no longer at our doorstep. A defeat is now only a minor setback instead of a death sentence. We as a whole must learn to accept that military defeats will occure because we have reached a point in our growth where a defeat is not nearly so serious as it once was.

I think you are trying to make our situation seem more grave than it really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds

Senators,

Last night I was haunted by dreams of war. I saw again the deaths of women and children that I have witnessed these last few years. I am convinced that the Gods send me these dreams as a warning that needless bloodshed should be avoided in our campaigns. I know some men call me hugely superstitious, but nevertheless I shall be forced to withdraw my support for motion 5.5 unless it is reformulated to :

Motion 5.5: For the duration of the 270 - 265 Consulship only, the Consul may massacre enslave the population of any Gallic settlement he wishes and knock down all barbaric religious structures, provided that the settlement is abandoned after the deed is done.

If we enslave the Gauls we will be doing them a kindness as we take them into a civilized culture and we need the extra population badly. I see no harm in bringing them to a better life. I would also suggest changing the sentence all barbaric religious structures to all barbaric structures, but this is not a big issue for me. If senator Verginius will not reformulate this motion I will propose a motion myself. I ask the senator if he is willing to make these changes.

---

Perhaps my hatred of the unwashed hordes has clouded my judgement. I see value in what you are saying, but to a point. Our attitude towards the Gauls should be defined by what is best for Rome, not by giving them some status which they have not earned. Still, I note that it will require much manpower even to build a road network in the vitally important Cisalpine region. Perhaps the enslavement of some Gauls to work in these provinces would be of particular use. Yet an expedition of this sort must in the end bring profit to Rome to allow for the necessary improvements. I do not believe that the enslavement of all of Gaul will be as beneficial as the enslavement of some and the destruction of others. Would you perhaps be willing to reach a compromise on this issue?

(OOC: see my statements in the OOC thread regarding knocking down military buildings - it's a game issue, not RP)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shifty157

I must agree with my son. Destroying settlement and killing its populace is unnecessarily harsh. It is true that the looting may provide us with small amounts of immediate gold but in the long run we are only hurting ourselves as eventually these settlements will no doubt be ours. Much more can be gained over time by the occupation of settlements and the generation of new tax incomes. Also this allows us to spread out the burden of military upkeep so that we can free up more funds from our existing settlements.

I do not belive in abandoning a city unless strategically necessary. If our blood has been spilled on its streets then it is ours. I will not say that the blood of our men has been given in vain. Also the Gaulish land beyond the Alps is treacherous and I would not risk crossing it several times to simply "raid" a town once or twice. The risk of a complete ambush is far too prevalent and we have been lucky so far in that respect. As long as we are in Gaulish territory we must stay within the safety of cities as long as possible and moving only in force and with a defined purpose.

---

I agree that long term occupation of provinces is more profitable, but only if they receive substantial capital investments to improve their infrastructure. This is particularly true of barbarian settlements. We control all of Cisalpine Gaul, yet these areas are currently a drain on our Treasury and we do not yet have the capital to resolve this. I propose a method to increase the value of these territories, while you propose to simply add more undeveloped drains that will require an even larger army to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shifty157

You back a candidate who proposes raiding into Gaulish territory but tell me how much gold do you really believe this will bring to our treasury? The Gauls control only six more cities worth conquering. Of these only three of them are within reach to raid and then return to the safety of the Alps in a reasonable amount of time.

---

Such timidity is unbecoming a Roman. Three cities? I shall raid them ALL. I shall personally lead a single Consular army from one end of Gaul to the other. I shall crush our enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women! If you wish, I will assign you an appropriately comfortable governorship in an Italian province. I am sure such a post would suit you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

The plan of Verginius is completely the opposite, it is not decisive enough. He plans to plunder the Gallic lands, but while that may boost our treasury, what strategic value is there to it? In 5 years, we will be at the same place we are now. He would have a mighty army at his disposal, but would be content with making limited raids. He complains about the treasury, but it is exactly the large army that is very expensive. Unless the army is put to use, that money is wasted. I also find his plan short sighted. While plunder gets us some immediate money, conquest gets us money in the future as settlements are developed. And finally, I find his extermination policy deplorable. Any Gallic man pointing his sword at Rome should be slain at once, but what purpose is there to slaughtering women and children, other than to satisfy the Senator's greed? Verginius makes little mention of what military objectives this would accomplish. He seems to be driven by greed and his hatred of the Gauls. However, his pacifist and anti-expansionist policies prevent him from actually conducting a decisive conquest.

---

Beasts do not deserve such compassion. Did they show compassion when they savaged the Republic in your grandfather's day? Perhaps your family was one of the privileged few that remained safe on the Capitoline Hill. My family fought and bled to defend the citizens who were not so fortunate. I shall never forget that they showed no mercy to Rome before nor have they shown it since. They started this war, not us. The enslavement of some may of use to us, but only because it would serve Rome, not because the Gauls deserve mercy.

As for wasting money... such folly. You note with glee the rampant warfare being waged in Africa, yet with what do you plan on protecting these new acquisitions of yours? More legions will be required to control these territories. More ships will be required to transport and resupply these legions. Or do you propose to trust in the good will of the Numidians to refrain from attempting to seize from us what they are already trying to take from Carthage?

Laevinus, I am well aware of our current military and diplomatic situation. I have no doubt that you could engage in two invasions with the current forces at our disposal, but just because you can do it does not mean it is the best solution. Instead of focusing our forces, you plan to divide them. This introduces unnecessary risk and costs Roman lives. A single legion may defeat a large Carthaginian army, but two legions will defeat it easier, quicker, and with fewer casualties. With a larger force, garrisons, rear security, multiple lines of attack, and the all-important reserve become less of an issue. The point is, while you can fight a two-front war, you should never do so out of your free will! I am also most distrubed by your attitude on defeat. While we may be able to recover from a defeat militarily, defeat is not acceptible. It is dishonorable and costs Roman lives.

Verginius, I suspected you would bring the sacking up. For you I have but a single question: are we not better than they? And to address your issue of defending Africa, an attacking force that takes a certain ground against a particular enemy should always be able to defend that ground from the same enemy. It is easier to defend than to attack. Since I don't plan to overextend, the invading force should be available for defense of the newly acquired territories. I don't see where you see the need for additional troops.

I would also like to take this opportunity to second Motions 5.2 and 5.3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

Verginius, I suspected you would bring the sacking up. For you I have but a single question: are we not better than they? And to address your issue of defending Africa, an attacking force that takes a certain ground against a particular enemy should always be able to defend that ground from the same enemy. It is easier to defend than to attack. Since I don't plan to overextend, the invading force should be available for defense of the newly acquired territories. I don't see where you see the need for additional troops.

---

Better than they? The comparison cannot even be made, Senator. Does your compassion spare the life of a wolf that has attacked your flock? Do you tread carefully on the streets for fear of destroying an insect? Every Gaul is either a potential killer or the potential breeder of a killer. To dismiss this is to ignore reality. The Punic people are civilized merchants. They can be negotiated with. They can be bargained with. The Gauls are wolves on two legs.

As for the lack of troops for Africa... do you not realize that the Punic provinces are devoid of strategic choke points at which we may concentrate our forces? How shall you prevent an army from taking any of the unwalled cities that you conquer or do you only plan on limiting your acquisitions to Carthago and Hadrumentum?

If you want wealth from Africa, make peace with Carthage. Trade with Carthage. We started this war, we took their lands, we enslaved their peoples. They have more than paid for the unlawful executions they committed. You seek to take Carthaginian territories out of a lust for conquest and power. I seek to supply Rome with the necessities of domestic development and to destroy an enemy that cannot be reasoned with.

Senators,

I want it to be known that I will second Motion 5.5.

Senators, many of you are neglecting your duty. The time for debate is almost at an end and only ONE motion has two seconders and will thus be voted upon. This simply will not do at all. Please senators,

Please read the proposed motions and make know which ones you support !

I you dislike all these motion, please propose new motions.

[QUINTUS]: Senators, here is a motion I believe we may all be able to agree on:

Motion 5.9: This House instructs the First Consul to develop at least one settlement for the recruitment of Gallic auxiliaries.

Gentlemen, I remember being sharply criticised for not building auxiliary structures in captured settlements. However, I did develop several in Italy and it is not clear that we have progressed much beyond them.

Now that we have captured settlements in Gaul, we have the possibility to recruit new troops types previously unavailable. In particular, we may eventually train Gallic warriors, equipped with fine Celtic armour, to be dependable auxiliaries for our legions. Furthermore, Gallic noble cavalry is amongst the finest in the world and superior to Italian cavalry, and perhaps even Equites.

In order to recruit these troops we must work hard to civilise a given Gallic settlement. It will take many years, but the cost of doing so for just one settlement should be easily affordable and it will be a long term investment that will ultimately be a significant benefit to the Republic.

I believe we can safely leave the choice of which particular settlement(s) to be developed to the First Consul. It probably should be a large settlement with a fast growing population, so it can spare men for war and ultimately develop armouries.

Time is pressing - I need two seconders for this motion before 6pm UK time.

Senator Swordsmaster, I wonder if your motion 5.3 on the fleet should be revised to be simpler but more specific? I suggest the following revision:

Motion #5.3: We should recruit a fleet of Corvus Quinquiremes that may challenge the Carthaginian and Greek navies for control of the seas. Syracuse and Tarentum should be developed to this end, for example, by building armouries to enhance our ships.

If you were to amend this motion, I would second it and it would provide the Senate will a clear specific choice.

I will second motion 5.9 and I recommend Patavium for this purpose.

(OOC: in-game compression of time allows the messenger to have departed and returned within this Senate session)

A recognised messenger arrives in the Senate, it is the aide to Decius Curtius.

“Senate of the Republic, I have appraised my master of the proceedings to date and have his written opinions thus far.”

He unfurls a parchment and after being given agreement to proceed starts to read from it.

“Senators, I have heard of calls and pledges to “raid” Gaul for gold….what talk is this? It is not the Roman way to act like savages, nor is it the Roman way to act like the brain addled gold miner…..desperate to find the next “fix” with a golden sheen!

It may be true that the Gauls are savages, that they’re very nature and warlike ways are abhorrent to us but if we act like them….do we not then become NO better than them? I ask you Senators, what does a civilised and cultured man feel like when he is bathed in blood for the sake of only gold?

Punishment is not dealt out for only vengeance and profit but so the transgressor may learn the error of their ways. The Gauls will not learn to fear us or learn that we are their betters unless we show them and educate them thus. If we choose to purely raid for gold, all we will breed is more hatred and greater stubbornness to oppose us when we eventually must absorb them into the Republic.

Nay I say, we must not raid Gaul, nor are we in a position to liberate them into the Republic. To conquer Gaul will mean expanding our borders far beyond what we can control at this time and plunge us into potential war on FOUR fronts!!

I say we must deal with one foe at a time and concentrate all our military efforts to deal a swift and fatal blow to them before we consider anything other than defensive measures against others.

The Senate may consider a concerted campaign against Gaul then? My opposition to this is based on tactical issues and financial issues. Tactically, as is known to many in the Senate, they will be difficult to control and even more difficult to occupy. Financially, they will be a drain on our economy until they can be developed. I repeat, I will not support acts of barbarism, murder and pillage by the hands of true and civilised Roman citizen legionaries.

As I have stated in my last missive, I strongly support and urge the liberation of Carthage. I would like for the Senate to consider a bold proposal though……the swift and decisive strike at Carthago herself!”

(OOC: Pause for shocked Gasps from the Senate)

“I believe that we should not fear the armies of this nation greatly and that within 2 seasons we will be able to raise sufficient naval presence as to be able to land an army capable of defeating this nation without further supply.

Yes, Carthago is surrounded by the greater mass of military might of this nation….but….defeat that, take Carthago herself and what possible further opposition could they present us? In perhaps two fatal seasons the Republic could bask in the profits and knowledge that we have sorely defeated Carthage.

No long war of attrition, no long marches through provincial cities eating up denarii.

We land, we fight, we win and we not only take Carthage’s capital but and the greatest prize we have yet seen since Roma herself.

If we land far to the East, Carthage will surely use her navy to land armies to our rear, perhaps even in our weakened homelands! I know this because it is what I would do…I would use my greatest strength to weaken the enemy, my navy.

Striking at her heart takes away not only her Capital city but her main centres of raising advanced troops, building ships and financial income. Also, I have no fears of defeat. The members of the lower house have shown themselves VASTLY capable of defeating whatever Carthage can throw at them.

So, I say re-enforce Massilia, ensure Patavium is also secure against the Illyrians and Greeks then strike South like a dagger into the heart of Carthage.

To this end I propose the following motions:

MOTION #5.10:
The Senate authorises the raising of sufficient ships to expand the navy and enable it to transport a Consular size army directly.

MOTION #5.11:
The Senate authorises a direct landing of Consular strength against Carthago from Lilybaeum to the peninsular just East of Carthago or just North of Hadrumentum.

MOTION #5.12:
The Senate authorises the construction of a fortification to house and further defend the border legion at the river crossing north of Massilia.

The proposed motions allow the Consul freedom to perform these tasks whenever he deems able and do not overly dictate the conditions of their completion. However, they are risky proposals and only the bravest will commit to such a bold undertaking….however, in the words of a fellow Senator…

……….. He does not strike first, is first struck.”

The messenger rolls up the scroll.

“Members of the Senate, I have been given liberty to further explain my masters proposals should they require further expansion.”

He now retakes a seated position and awaits the Senates pleasure.

Brother Verginius, you must be mistaken. A closer examination of the reports provided by the loyal scribes from Cisalpine Gaul will show that they are in fact earning valuable money for our state, as opposed to draining our treasury. This is a common misconception, as we have chosen to make them pay heavily to support Rome's legions, more than they are earning for the state.

Apart from that, I fully agree with Senator Verginius. The death of thousands of Carthaginians are enough, and I am sure that they have learned their lesson.

A messenger for Sextus Antio enters the Senate, and announces:

"Senators, I have a message for the Senate from our diplomat, Sextus Antio."

He then pulls out a parchement and begins to read.

Senator Curtius, we Romans have already struck first. We have driven the Phonecians of Carthage out of Sicilia, Melite, Corsica, and Sardinia; that is not enough? For shame Senators! Have we become so desperate for glory? Have we no honour? Carthage did no wrong, yet we punished them all the same. Shall we commit this dishonourable act again?

As for our Gallic neighbours, they deserve nothing but destruction! However, we ought no be hasty, Senators. Why should we conquer this uncivilised wasteland? We have but to destroy all we can, and depart. For do you not remember what those barbarians did CXXVI years ago? They destroyed Rome, and then robbed us of our gold. Shall this act go unpunished? No! Noble Senators, we shall use fire and sword on these Gauls and sow their fields with salt!

I now must end my message, noble Senators, but my messenger has further messages should they be required.

The scribe turns and leaves the Senate building.

My master will support and also second Motion #5.9 as proposed by Quintus.

Whilst he will believe the ultimate choice of location of this settlement should be with the Consul.

I would like to note that the upkeep of an additional 8 ships (which would bring our total to 16, enough to transport a consular army), would cost us so much money, it would bankrupt us. I'd like to ask one of the senators who has access to the finance figures to give the senate an exact estimate of the costs of 8 warships and 8 transport ships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds

I would like to note that the upkeep of an additional 8 ships (which would bring our total to 16, enough to transport a consular army), would cost us so much money, it would bankrupt us. I'd like to ask one of the senators who has access to the finance figures to give the senate an exact estimate of the costs of 8 warships and 8 transport ships.

---

I have consulted the Treasury scribes and they have given me the following information:

Current Treasury: 5,045
Seasonal Income: 4,806

Cost of the cheapest available ship: 700 construction, 175 upkeep

Immediate cost of raising 8 additional ships: 5,600
Increase in seasonal costs to maintain 8 additional ships: 1,400

Treasury after construction of 8 additional ships: -555
Seasonal income after construction of 8 additional ships: 3,406

Obviously my master was not aware of the current fiscal situation and I am no mathamatician....

Do those figures mean that IF we build those craft in one year we will exhaust our given funds but will recoop them the following season? I point to the fact that my master has not placed a time limit on the construction of such a fleet only that he considers it must be done.

My assumption is within the next Consularship which is 20 seasons is it not? If my conclusion of the figures given is correct, such an undertaking will not produce a negative income providing it is something undertaken over a period of perhaps 4-8 seasons even if done in conjunction with other essential recruitment and building.

However, I would urge the Senate to second the least provocotive Motion from my master Motion #5.12.

Ah, so much has been said since I last visited a couple of days ago for it where mere days, although it appears to me that I have been gone for years !

I'm sure my view on most matter which I have missed have been raised by my nearest family members, and if not, then I shall trust my families judgement on the issues that were raised in my absence.

On the motions however I am informed, and shall voice my support of those I like and argue why those I didn't aren't the correct way to lead our republic.

On the current motions....

Quote:

---

Motion #5.1: This House grants First Consul Lucius Aemilius a triumph. This is on account of his successful conquest of Cisalpine Gaul, Massilia and the island settlements of Melte, Aleria and Caralis with relatively little loss. It notes the generous role of the First Consul in providing opportunities for other members of the Lower House to give battle on Rome's behalf.

---

Although my father Publius has given his agreement, I must say I do not agree. I find that if general Quintus was not given a triumph - which was mainly due to my voice - then Lucius, however good his battles were fought, does not deserve one at this time.

It would simply not be fair to Quintus, who in my opinion has fought more important battles, and must be awarded a triumph before anyone else.

Quote:

---

Motion #5.2: This house instructs the First Consul to invade Africa with the aim of conquering the city of Carthago, Utica, Hippo Regius, Thapsus and Hadrumentum.

---

Quote:

---

motion 5.8
Quintus' Consul 1 Army is to land in Afrika near Carthage and engage the inevitable Carthaginian defense. If the Carthaginians are destroyed then a diplomat is to be sent to Carthage demanding a ceasefire for money.

---

Quote:

---

5.11
The Senate authorises a direct landing of Consular strength against Carthago from Lilybaeum to the peninsular just East of Carthago or just North of Hadrumentum.

---

I'd propose we only attack the Carthaginian forces in Africa when we're capable of landing a full army at their shores. Which we - unlesss I really have been gone for years - don't have.

Further more I like the sound of this motion, and am a little surprised it has not been given more support..

Quote:

---

Motion #5.4: Consolidate. We need roads. Walls. Armouries. Cities that cannot build walls, should be within 1 turns marching distance of a strongly garrisoned fort.

---

As of now, I support motion 5.4

The same goes for this motion, 5.3

Quote:

---

Motion #5.3: Build a fleet. This means we need to support one. All possible improvements should be built in Italy to support a greater number of ships and soldiers.

---

It seems the wise thing to do, if we want to conquer Carthage at some time, and wish to garrison it with enough strength to hold it.

As for the motions I did not mention, I need some time to figure out if I wish to support them... I'd like to know what my family thinks, whom I haven't spoken in quite some time !

:balloon2:

[SENATE SPEAKER]: I am grateful to Senators Decius Curtius and Marcus Laevinus for seconding some motions.

May I remind Senators that as of this moment, the following motions do not have two seconders and will not be put to the vote unless they acquire them soon:

Motions: 5.4; 5.5; 5.6; 5.7; 5.8; 5.10; 5.11; 5.12

Anyone supporting these motions should formally second them before 6pm UK time today.

I would like to second motion 5.5.

I second the following:

5.4
5.12

My master will second motion #5.8

If the senate wishes to invade then we do not need to construct a larger fleet. Even if we did build a fleet of twenty ships it would still not be able to stand against the Carthaginian fleet and so we must still avoid them even then. Building such a large fleet at this point in time would be foolish and unnecessary.

If you look at my plan for the invasion of Afrika we will not need another fleet. Our current fleet will serve us just fine. If we land our forces directly south of Melite as I propose is the most tactically sound plan it will take two seasons to land the entire consular army on the Afrikan shore. This is much less time than it would take for any Carthaginian army to try and oppose our landing. Why do you senators wish to land directly outside of Carthage and risk fighting every single Carthaginian army at the same time? To charge headstrong at the area where the enemy is most well defended is just foolish. If we land on Carthage's outlying prvinces and march up the coast then we can face the Carthaginian army in smaller more manageable pieces instead of facing it all at once. We will also have conquered more provinces in less time and spent much less money on needless expenses like building and maintaining such an unnecessarily large fleet.

To those of you so ignorantly claim that seizing Gaulish territory would only drain our treasury of its funds again I tell you to research your arguments to make sure they are actually true before you decide to open your mouth about topics which you know nothing of.

If you only looked at the latest statistics gathered in our own library you would quickly find that the four Gaulish territories we have captured provide us with more than 1,700 denarii every season. This is not a small sum and it does not even include the amount of additional denarii we have gained from our other cities because some of the cost of maintaining our armed forces has been spread to these new settlements.

So yes you are correct. These Gaulish lands that we have so recently conquered are indeed draining our treasury at an alarming rate. They are draining it of empty space and filling it with gold.

Senator, please note that it is, as far as I am aware, exclusively my masters motion to propose landings near Carthago..

As yet it has not found any support in the Senate, I am sure my master would not wish you to heap scorn upon the other good members of the Senate for his own, in your eyes, tactical error.

Presently, my master is firmly behind Tiberius Coruncanius for Consulship as he strongly believes we should not enter Gaul further until we have dealt with the issue of Carthage…….be that by diplomacy, the sword or a combination of both…and if we MUST make further contact with the Gauls it should be very minimal.

Whilst the Gauls pose an annoyance at this time, the power of Carthage and her ability to utterly control the seas is too much and must be addressed within this Consulship.

Further, my master will undertake to support any proposals for concerted internal development in the next Consulship following this next one assuming Carthage is neutralised.

At that point we will have secure Northern borders with the Alps, secure trade and shipping lanes in the seas and no direct borders with our next greatest foe the Greeks. He believes that, that is the stage that the Republic can rest and concentrate on internal matters for 5 years at least.

I have decided to back motion #5.8. I once again encourage the senators to look over all the proposed motion (first post in this thread) and to say which motions has their backing. If a motion does not get two seconders, it will not come up for voting.

Conscript Fathers, forgive me, I have not had time to read all the transcripts of this Senate session. Could someone kindly tell me how much longer we have for debate & proposing of motions?

[SENATE SPEAKER]: The deadline for the submitting and seconding motions is 6pm UK time today. Voting will then last for 24 hours.

First of all, I wish to second motions 5.6 & 5.12

Regarding Carthage, 5 years ago I proposed that we strike directly at their homelands, once we were strong enough to do so. I am still of the opinion that an assault directly on their major cities such as Carthage itself would be the most decisive way to fight the war. However, Conscript Fathers I do not believe we are currently strong enough to do so currently.

Oh, we have the armies to fight on the battlefield all right. What we do not have is the navy to transport and reinforce our armies in Africa. And we certainly do not have the troops to garrison Carthaginian cities. They are populous, and will not take kindly to Roman rule. A Consular Legion would be completely occupied in garrisoning just one or two of their large cities. And whilst I am confident that we will defeat them on the battlefield, we will lose men, and remember, all our reinforcements must be recruited in Italia, make their way down to Sicily, and then risk crossing the water to Africa.

I say we must wait before striking the killer blow against Carthage, so much the better to take off their head with one swing of the sword, than to endlessly feint and parry like Gladiators in training.

Regarding Gaul, I am most certainly of the opinion that the conquest of this barbaric wasteland is completely pointless. It will tie up more Roman troops in garrisons, it will bring in little of value and will leave us exposed strategically. Those who point to the income of the conquered Gaulish territories consistantly fail to point out one crucial aspect of their occupation - funnily enough the point that undermines their whole argument. The fact that these Gaulish towns require garrisoning and most of all Romanizing!!! And this development costs money, and lots of it! To hold the towns in Gaul is folly.

For these reasons, I support the candidate Senator Augustus Verginus! But I urge you Senator, I urge you as former Consul Lucius Aemelius has, not to massacre the Gauls but to enslave them. Cisalpine Gaul has a small population, and it needs settlers and slaves if it is to grow and truly contribute to our Republic.

Decius Curtius, I agree with you for your sound reasoning. We MUST attack Carthage now, before she is too strong to never stop.

We have the right and a suty to keep an eye up for anyone who will intrude on our lands and impede on our trade. Carthage is the dominant power in the Western Med., and we are at war with her. These are the facts, it does not matter who struck first, the fact is that if we do not strike now, she will strike us. Carthage has already demonstrated that she controls the seas. We must take that power from her and thus ensure she is no threat to our trade.

Quote:

---

Motion #5.3: Build a fleet. This means we need to support one. All possible improvements should be built in Italy to support a greater number of ships and soldiers.

MOTION #5.10:
The Senate authorises the raising of sufficient ships to expand the navy and enable it to transport a Consular size army directly.

MOTION #5.11:
The Senate authorises a direct landing of Consular strength against Carthago from Lilybaeum to the peninsular just East of Carthago or just North of Hadrumentum.

MOTION #5.12:
The Senate authorises the construction of a fortification to house and further defend the border legion at the river crossing north of Massilia.

---

I support all of these motions, hoping that my fellow senators will see the reeason to attack Carthage. We must snatch away her docks and her lands, else she will take ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

For these reasons, I support the candidate Senator Augustus Verginus! But I urge you Senator, I urge you as former Consul Lucius Aemelius has, not to massacre the Gauls but to enslave them. Cisalpine Gaul has a small population, and it needs settlers and slaves if it is to grow and truly contribute to our Republic.

---

I thank you for your vote Senator and I would like to say that I aim only to do what is best for the Republic. I do see great value in using Gallic slaves to aid construction in our newly acquired provinces. However, the Gallic population is extensive and I believe that if we enslave them all, we may simply serve to bring the enemy into our own homes. We need slaves, but to a limit. Beyond that it is still my belief that the Gauls must be taught to fear Rome beyond all other terrors. Diplomacy has never worked with these beasts and if we are ever to be free of their attacks, we must use other means of preventing them. That said, I will do my best to retain a cool head in the event that I am given such a decision to make. With the blessings of Jupiter, I shall make the proper decisions each and every time to bring the greatest benefit to the Roman people.

I thank you on behalf of my master Senator Publius Pansa for your support. It is unfortunate that the majority of the Senate appears to be more concerned with gaining coin and murdering easy targets this session than any true furtherance of our culture, laws or any concerns about the Honour of our fighting men.

……but then I am a low-borne man and perhaps do not understand the workings of the “noble” mind. I am certain all will be well with the Republic in their hands.

I have placed my votes according to my masters wishes now so can take my leave. I am sure I will be returned during the next Consularship if my master cannot attend in person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

[QUINTUS]:
Motion 5.9: This House instructs the First Consul to develop at least one settlement for the recruitment of Gallic auxiliaries.

---

Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

[QUINTUS]:
Senator Swordsmaster, I wonder if your motion 5.3 on the fleet should be revised to be simpler but more specific? I suggest the following revision:

Motion #5.3: We should recruit a fleet of Corvus Quinquiremes that may challenge the Carthaginian and Greek navies for control of the seas. Syracuse and Tarentum should be developed to this end, for example, by building armouries to enhance our ships.

If you were to amend this motion, I would second it and it would provide the Senate will a clear specific choice.

---

I agree to your wording, but I want to shift the focus slightly towards economic development. This is the final wording of my

MOTION 5.3:

We should recruit a fleet of Corvus Quinquiremes that may challenge the Carthaginian and Greek navies for control of the seas. Syracuse and Tarentum should be developed to this end, by building the necessary facilities to enhance our ships. The necessary steps must be also taken so that when our fleet reaches the size needed to carry a consular army, we have a monthly income of at least 5000 denarii.

Corollary 1 to motion 5.3:
From now on, a fleet capable of transporting a consular army will be named Consular Fleet

Corollary 2 to motion 5.3:

A fleet capable of transporting a Praetorian army is to be named Praetorian Fleet

Corollary 3 to motion 5.3:

A fleet of 5 or less ships not intended for transportation, but war, is to be called Auxiliary fleet

I leave these to the consideration of the librarian, and my fellow senators.


Note to the librarian: Please update the text proposed in the voting poll with these motions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Note to the librarian: Please update the text proposed in the voting poll with these motions

---

[Senate Librarian]
Senator, most humble apologies, but I do not have control of the voting procedures. I believe that only the Senate Speaker has the power to do what you ask. I would like to observe, however, that it may be too late for such a change. Much voting has already occurred based on the original text and changing the motion after votes have been cast would be a legally questionable action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

[Senate Librarian]
Senator, most humble apologies, but I do not have control of the voting procedures. I believe that only the Senate Speaker has the power to do what you ask. I would like to observe, however, that it may be too late for such a change. Much voting has already occurred based on the original text and changing the motion after votes have been cast would be a legally questionable action.

---

I certainly accept your apologies, and although I do understand the problem you are referring to, I also wish to point out, that my failure to rephrase and refine my proposal is only due to unavoidable time constraints (OOC: Real Life, and internet access time). So I would like to suggest slightly more ample time is given when modifications of motions are proposed.

I'll second that request.

OOC : As the empire grows, consulships will take longer and longer. We can increase the time for debate to three days without slowing down the games, as time between senate session will grow as well.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Yes, apologies, Senator Swordsmaster but the deadline for submitting (and revising) motions has passed. There will be another opportunity to submit motions in the mid-term session of Senate in two and a half years.

[OOC: Three days for debate would be fine. We had 2.5 this time.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Yes, apologies, Senator Swordsmaster but the deadline for submitting (and revising) motions has passed. There will be another opportunity to submit motions in the mid-term session of Senate in two and a half years.

[OOC: Three days for debate would be fine. We had 2.5 this time.]

---

That is fine. I would like to propose the 3 corollaries as 3 general motions, then, to be approved out of ession, as they do not affect consulship.

[QUINTUS]: On the naming of fleets, we may want to distinguish light transports from powerful warships.

Following Senator Swordmaster's suggestions, I propose we refer to our current fleet as a "Praetorian transport fleet".

If it were doubled in size, it would be a "Consular transport fleet"; if it were divided into two, it would be two "Legion transport fleets".

If were to build some Corvus Quinquiremes, we might refer to these as a "Naval Fleet". I am not sure refering to the size of the formations they may transport would be relevant in the case of warships - even five Corvus Quinquiremes would be a formiddable and expensive naval fleet.

Where we have multple fleets of the same size, we could enumerate them ("First Naval Fleet" etc).

If we did want to transport an entire Consular army in one season, a First Consul may prefer to do it by combining a Praetorian fleet, a naval fleet and either a second naval fleet or a Legion transport fleet. Maintaining a standing Consular transport fleet may be rather expensive and inflexible.

I second these ideas.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: The results of the First Consul election are now confirmed - Augustus Verginius has been elected with a convincing majority!

He will now attend to his duties and return to report to us in two and a half years.

Members of the Lower House are urged to communicate with him if they have any special requests as to their deployment. Otherwise, they must stand ready to do battle within 48 hours if called upon.

The Senate wishes First Consul Verginius every success in implementing his planned campaigns in Gaul!

I am very pleased to be the first senator to congratulate Augustus Verginius with his consulship. I have every faith in him and I am sure that this senate has reached the right decision.

I understand that the other candidates are disappointed, but I am positive in five years time we will need a more rash and agressive (and expansive) approach to dealing with our enemies and then their talents will be better employed than they would be at the moment. For this is Verginius's his moment, the right man at the right place at the right time.

Hail Roma !

My hearty congratulations, Consul Augustus Verginius. I pray Fortuna will bless you with a succesful & prosperous reign.

May I inform the Senate that I shall be unable to attend sessions here, or conduct a battle in the field for the next 4 days.

Until then Conscript Fathers...

I bring to the Senate very gladly the first victory of our new Consul's reign. As any intelligent man would have expected the Gauls attacked us again at the river ford by Massilia and we were ready for them with unsheathed swords.

This horde which was just as large and fearsome as the last was lead personally by the Gaulish chieftan himself along with two of his close family members. The Gaulish chieftan it seems had called to his service one quarter of all of his fighting men in an effort to break our defenses and drive us back across the Alps.

The battle was a stunning success. The Gaulish chieftan was slain as he turned to run from my own sword. His two generals were slain as well. One as he charged the spear wall of our triarii and the other against my veteran principes. The rest of the Gauls were slain as they fled.

With this momentous victory I have destroyed the Gaulish chieftan and two of his generals and destroyed one fourth of the entire military might of Gaul. It is a glorious day indeed.

Even as I ride towards Massilia to congratulate Senator Laevinus on his glorious victory, I have received word that they are under assault yet again by another large Gallic force! Our spies had reported that the one destroyed in the Summer was the last they would be able to field for some time, yet another appears as if out of nowhere to challenge the battered, though victorious, Legio III.

Perhaps this will sway the minds of those who think that Carthage is still our prime concern...

Hardly. The Gallic assaults are of little concern, as you have an easily defensible position against them. Carthage, on the other hand, could land a large army anywhere in Italy, Sicily, or the other islands, and you would be able to do nothing to stop them. Luckily, thus far they have been either too incompetent to realize that, or uninterested in a war. Hopefully, they will remain so. I wish you luck in Gaul, Consul.

I lay before the Senate and people of Rome another victory over Gaul. Again they raised a horde to assault our defenses and again the veteran troops of Legio III fought back across the river. This army was led by the Gaulish faction heir and a trusted general. I personally saw to the faction heir so that he would not escape while the other general wasted himself on the spears of my triarii. Over 1000 Gauls were slain. I and my cavalry killed nearly half as I am proud to say that my escort is now skilled enough to challenge enemy infantry directly.

I also bring the good news that my younger son Decius has come of age and will hopefully attend the academy. Though I fear he is somewhat unruly he will do well for Rome.