The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations

[QUINTUS]: Senators! Is there no man among you who will lead the Republic to further glories? By the gods, all this talk of consolidation makes me regret ever promising not to seek re-election!

Let me speak frankly with you, brothers. Unless you have attempted to lead this great Republic, it is hard to understand the economic constraints upon her. Never, in the many games and exercises I played in my youth in the Academy, have I experienced one where the economic constraint is so tight.

I also remind you, gentlemen, that this long campaign we have set ourselves will be very hard. We afford our citizens more luxuries than our cruel neighbours provide their own. Consequently, every rival faction earns a bonus of 10000 gold each season above what we can obtain.

Those are the stubborn facts, on which I hope we can agree.

So, I ask this - what do they imply?

Some of you infer that the tightness of our economy implies that we should cease conquest for fives years and consolidate. I believe this is misguided. Given the extra income our rivals receive, I suspect a period of peace will allow them to pull ahead and we will fall behind. And in absolute terms - after five years of stagnation, what will have changed? Very little, I suspect. We will still lack a navy capable of defleating the massive armada that Carthage recently threatened Sicily with. The time taken to get the necessary naval infrastructure is simply too long. We can already recruit the best troops possible. And the returns to investing in markets, roads or ports appear to me rather slim compared to the stiff initial outlays required.

By contrast, my inference from the above facts is that economic constraints necessitate unrelentless expansion. Conquest will provide the resources that we can use to plough back into our economy. Noble Senators, we already have the means to expand continuously by land. We already have four legions - enough to free a Consular army for Gaul, while leaving legion-sized garrisons in Sicily and central Italy. I do not believe we would need to raise further substantial field formations to secure Cisalpine Gaul, only a few garrison troops. Consequently, I believe capturing Gaulish settlements will increase the net resources available for our navy and our economy, not reduce it. We can take Cisalpine Gaul and then decide what direction next to take - west, into Transalpine Gaul, or east into Illyria.

I call upon you Senators who have not yet spoken - is there no man among you who will fight for the republic you love?

As consul Quintus has managed to conquer a vast swath of territory, brought large amounts riches and slaves to our cities, and also has managed to defeat a large number of enemy troops versus minor losses of our own, he should be granted a Triumph.
I would ask consul Quintus to deliver proof to this house that he has satisfactied the necessary requirements. Our enemies have not been completely defeated, but as they are driven from our lands our troops can go home safely. I am not sure how many enemies have been slain and if this reaches the required number of 5.000 slain, but seeing our minor losses I am willing to be lenient on this requirement.

I propose motion #6 :
Consul Quintus should be granted leave by the senate to celebrate a Triumph.

Edit : Remove double post.

I second that.

Braden: My inbox is empty now.

Given the situation I must say that I agree fully with Quintus.

There is much to be said of the gold that fills our treasuries from sacking towns and then taxing the inhabitants.

To this end I would even support the landing of an army on Greek soil. The small distance by sea would not require a large fleet. Indeed a small fleet could make several trips in a season and still return safely to harbor. It is far from the perilous voyage that sailing to Carthage would require. It would also relieve the pressure for large garrisons in Italy which we currently face.

Quintus, I take heed of your greater knowledge of our current financial state and of the mechanics of finance.

Do you not find it slightly amusing that not so long ago you were telling me that I was perhaps too eager for conquest and now it seems our roles are reversed?

However, since your advice clearly shows that I am lacking in understanding of how our economy is best served I am willing to concede the issue here. I have, as you know, long been in favour of expansion Northwards and to pursue the Gauls once our immediate threats have been negated.

It appears that time is upon us now. In your opinion, what would be required of Rome to pursue and finish such a campaign? I would certainly be in favour of the conquest of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul and the Four settlements therein.

If the Senate can be assured that such an exploit would not:

1) Be such an undue drain on the Republics funds as to preclude the commencement of building towards a greater navy.
2) Cause us to become over extended militarily.

I am sure that such assurances from yourself can go along way to negating some of the fears expressed in the Senate so far this session.

By way of more general questions, I ask if we have sufficient number of members in the Lower House to take up governorships of these new conquests, I understand that the culture shock to the general populas of these settlements is likely to be great and as such we will have to either appoint very studious governors OR steel ourselves to decimate the poor locals of these towns.

The 2nd option is not one I would enjoy, nor would I vote for it. I have seen babes put to death by the sword…..it is not something I will have party too again in my lifetime.

On a lighter note, the current motions. Whilst it is commendable to consolidate the current list of motions I now find it hard to vote for some of those placed by Senator Sextius. Whilst I believe we should attempt to gain peace with Carthage at this time I now do not agree we should hamstring the next Consul with a pledge of lasting peace for 5 years. I do not believe we should, or are in a position to openly strike at Carthage again directly, I believe Quintus would agree with that – we do not have the navy that it would require – but that does not mean we should not attempt to absorb further territory by land or within the Sea.

If the motion remains as it is I will have to vote negative for motion 3.

Motion 5. Whilst sections (b) and (c) are agreeable to me, I see little use for section (a). If we pledge to march against Gaul the region in question will no longer be a border state and I doubt there will be a need for a stationed garrison in that region.

However, I trust we will enable the new Consul to fight as he sees fit and that he will not uphold that section of the motion.

As for Motion 4, I have not qualms about rewarding Quintus in this way.

We certainly need to expand but believe, before we strike East against the Greeks again we must expand and remove the Gauls from our door. Then I would support a landing against the Greeks, if not also on Sardinia.

Noble senators, I wish to ammend some of my motions.

MOTION #3:
This house proposes that:
(a) the new consul makes peace with Carthage, with the option of taking Melite before they do so.
(b) an offensive be amde against the Gauls of Cisalpine Gaul.
(c) that the new consul focus on the economy and prosperity, rather than army.
(d) that econmonic growth is to take a higher priority than expanison.

MOTION #5:
This house proposes that:
(a) Legio I move to a fort in the mountain pass leading to Transalpine Gaul, and Legio II move to a fort near Aquilea on the Roman side of the border.
(b) the Consular army at Agrigento be divided, half moving to a fort in southern Italia and half to a fort in central Sicilia.
(c) the Senate votes on the names the legions. (I.e. Legio I Victrix or Legio III Italia.)

Could the Senate Speaker please make the necessary alterations?

I add my name to Second those Motions as now tabled by Senator Sextius.

Senators, the words of Senator Quintus are wise and the experience from which he speaks adds great weight to his words. However, I am still wary of advancing before we are able and beyond our means. I am not a pacifist by any means, but I fear moving too far, too fast with too many provinces to defend against too many stinking Gauls. If, in the course of my Consulate, I felt that the Republic was strong enough to advance into Cisalpine Gaul, with the approval of the Senate, and without risking disaster, I would do so. The areas below the Alps certainly must be secured from that vile plague for Rome to be truly safe, I simply do not believe in a mandated requirement to take said provinces. Such a requirement cannot properly anticipate the readiness of the Republic during the course of the next consulate. What if the Punic armies return to Sicily? What if the Greeks land forces in the South?

I say we risk disaster if we mandate expansion at this point. Let us leave it to the next Consul to determine when war with Gaul should begin.

[QUINTUS]: Senator Augustus Verginius, your flexibility and caution does you credit. I suggest that you propose a motion, similar to that which I used to authorise the invasion of Sicily. That is to say, a motion authorising, but not mandating, you to declare war on Gaul if you judge the time right. Such a motion would avoid you having to return to the Senate to authorise a declaration of war and so speed up our campaign. I believe those who support advancing on Gaul should support such a motion, although they may also vote for other stronger motions.

On a personal note, Senators, I must humbly beg you not to vote for motion 4. Indeed, I plead with my good friend Senator Antio Sextus to withdraw the motion. Senator Braden speaks of it as a reward, but in fact I regard it as a punishment. From Senator Publius Laevinius's appearance in this house, you have seen what happens to a fighter when you assign him to a life of peace. It breaks his spirit and leaves only bitterness. If I am assigned to govern a settlement, I will have to resign my post as Second Consul. This means that - should Carthage land in Sicily - my ability to command a defence will be reduced by as much as three points out of seven. Furthermore, as I am already an ex-Consul, there will be no benefit from relinquishing my position as Second Consul. I urge you instead to leave the next First Consul free to deploy me as he wishes, hopefully as an army commander and still with the rank of Second Consul.

Indeed, this speaks to a wider issue raised by Senator Braden: whether we have enough governors for occupied settlements. I believe the world is such that there will never be enough fine generals to govern every settlement. Moreover, members of the Lower House will doubtless much prefer to be in the field than governing towns. Remember - to be a Legate requires 10 years in the field, not in a settlement. I am proud that during my Consulship, I managed to secure Tiberius Coruncanius and Publius Laevinus the posts of legate. I believe Luciud Amelius will also be eligible for such a promotion soon. In due course, they may all become Praetors and then later replace me as Second Consul. However, I confess that towards the end of my reign, the natural tendency to let generals end the season in a settlement may have overcome me. My successor would be better advised to always keep our Lower House members in the field or in forts, not languishing in settlements. This implies that settlement loyalty must be secured by larger garrisons, lower taxes or, in time, the good work of members of the Upper House who will take on civic duties.

As motion 4 was intended, I hope, to be reward for you Consul Quintus I can only withdraw my support for it if you, its intended recipient, does not approve of it.

It is obviously better for the members of the lower house to continue field commands and not languish in settlements like us Senators (laughs), I believe the Senates only concern is with unrest and the best way many of us have been told to address unrest with the people of a settlement is the presence of a strong governor. It that is not a necessity, then I for one would not be against your advice.

Good day to you all Senators,

I see a lot has been discussed of our future plans, but before I lay my plans before you all, I wish to congratulate Consul Quintus with his achievements thus far. Had your soldiers hailed you Imperator on the field of battle, I then would have supported a Triumph, now however as that is not the case, I must respectfully disagree with senator Amelius on that matter.

I see that while I was sleeping Sicily has been successfully taken, and that we are now at war with Carthage also.

That, I did not expect to happen on such as short notice...however I do agree that they were the ones who started it. They should never have positioned a large force near our consular armies.

Since they started this conflict we should offer them a ceasfire, the same goes for the treacherous Greeks. We should try and make some money of both of them before we completely destroy them, what do you think ?

Eventually I propose to use that newly aquired money to finance the re enforcement of our current standing armies. If that is done, we should recruit a new one. To, when the time comes, send North.

If both the Greeks and Carthaginians refuse our offer of a ceasfire, and with respect I would like to see some proof of their refusal, we should destroy them utterly. I propose to then take out Carthage first, this will not bring us into direct contact with other factions but it would give us some very fertile land, and a great trading centre. Greece 'll endanger our good relations with Macedon, and would maybe even ( if Macedon is still allied to the Greeks ) bring us into an expensive war against Greece backed by the Macedonians.

We'd win, of course, but it will cost us dearly I imagine.

Now as for the motions....I've obviously missed a few of them, and I must inform myself before I pass judgement.

:balloon2:

[QUINTUS]: Senator Lucius Amelius is most generous in proposing awarding me a triumph. He requests that I verify that I meet the conditions for such an honour.

Once condition is to slay 5000 enemies.

If this refers to a single battle, then clearly I have not met the condition (OOC: we may want to scale up - according to the historical army guidelines, our RTW legions are about 400 men; real life they were about 10x as large).

If it refers to all twelve battles I have personally led as First Consul, then alas the total slain is only 4990 enemies (for the loss of 453 of our own).

However, if we add to that total the three victories obtained in my campaigns under the leadership of my Legate Tiberius Coruncanius, at Paestum and elsewhere, then we will exceed the 5000 total.

A second condition is that I be Consul. My victories were achieved as First Consul and although no longer standing for that post, continued command of "Consular Army I" would allow me to retain the title of Second Consul.

The third condition is that I return the army to Roma. Senators, nothing would give me greater joy than to bring the men back home. Returning our Consular army would allow us to refit our troops with the improved equipment from the armoury under construction there. It would also make it easy to transfer replacements to bring our cohorts back up to full strength. Finally, it would bring our Consular army close to where the next fighting is likely to be - in Gaul.

However, noble Senators, you will all have seen the potential threat posed by the Carthaginian armada currently at sea. If the Consular army is to return, it is essential that Legio I, currently en route to Sicily, be stationed on the island and in fact be supplemented by additional troops - notably cavalry and triari.

Senator Marcus Laevinus, to what reasoning do you wish to deny our Consul Quintus his deserved triumph? Having led such a successful campaign with so few losses, I see no reason not to proceed with the ceremony. Surely such military prowess deserves to be recognised and celebrated?

On the issue of Carthage: I believe that a ceasefire should be sought after until we can achieve naval superiority. The Carthaginians are a maritime power with forbidable fleets. Seeking to conquer their lands would require a large, powerful fleet which, as far as I'm aware, we don't have access to currently.

On the issue of Gaul: It has been proposed that we hold off this inevitable war for at least 5 years whilst we look to resolve economic problems. It has also been said that a conquest of Gallic lands in Nortern Italy could relieve some of the monetary problems we are facing. Should it be proven that these spoils of war will replenish our coffers, I will reconsider my opinion on the matter. However, it is uncertain wether the military could handle the conquest alone, let alone a counter-attack from the barbarians.

I say we remain peaceful for the next few years, raising enough money to develop our naval technology and perhaps raise some legions in preparation for a conquest of the Gallic tribes in Northern Italy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

Senator Marcus Laevinus, to what reasoning do you wish to deny our Consul Quintus his deserved triumph? Having led such a successful campaign with so few losses, I see no reason not to proceed with the ceremony. Surely such military prowess deserves to be recognised and celebrated?

.

---

I agree, they should be celebrated and recognized. I however disagree in the means in which the people must celebrate.

A triumph needs to be something very,very special. Now I do acknowledge the fact that Consul Quintus could put 10 fallen enemies for every one Roman slain in battle, I do find that a great achievement.

But we must do this by the book, if one is not hailed Imperator on the field, he is not to be awarded a Triumph by the senate.

I'm sure that With Consul Quintus's tactical finesse on the battlefield, that moment will soon come, but it is not now.

:balloon2:

What follows is the manifesto of Tiberius Coruncanius, candidate for Consul.

Senators, this is a very important time for our republic. We have established Rome as an undisptued regional power in Italy, and it is now time to move to the next phase, becoming a world power, one capable of challenging Carthage or any of the successor states.

To acomplish this, we need a fleet. Without a fleet, the only thing we'll ever be able to conquer will be barbarian lands, which have nice scenery but little else of interest. Even to secure Italy from invasion we will need a fleet. We are currently at war with two naval powers, who can strike at us at will, and receive no retaliation. We need a fleet, urgently. There are many other things we need: auxilia infrastructure, economic infrastructure, and more legions. But they are all secondary to our need for a fleet. We need a large fleet, at least 20 ships to support amphibious operations of Consular armies. We also need an advanced and powerful war fleet to challenge the Carthaginians and the Greeks, and to establish naval superiority over the western and central Mediterranean. Infact, what we really need are two fleets! In time, of course, and for the moment we should focus on getting at least one.

I understand many of you see the building of a fleet as a costly and time-consuming effort, and that is perhaps true for a highly advanced fleet, as it would neccesiate the development of a lot of infrastructure. But most of the Greek cities we captured already contain the infrastructure for the construction of Aphracts, which we can use. Within one year, we could have a fleet sufficient to transport a Consular army, and we could finance it without tapping into the current treasury, but alone from the income we will gain over the next year! Of course, it won't be a very advanced fleet, and if it ever defeats a Carthaginian fleet, it would be by outnumbering them, but we could still invade Africa from Sicily. The distance involved is short, and the Carthaginian fleet is not defending that strait vigorously, probably because they don't expect an invasion.

As far as the north is concerned, I see it as a target of opportunity. If there is a good opportunity to conquer some land, and then reestablish peace, without detracting from the efforts in the south, then we should take it. But I have no interest in starting a major campaign against the Gauls. There is nothing up there, and the Gauls are not hostile at the moment.

The Carthaginians on the other hand, are hostile, and will remain so. Even if we make peace with them, they would invade Sicily at first opportunity. We would have to leave a large army down there, compromising any efforts against the Gauls. By invading Africa, we do one of two things. We either gain a very advantageous negotiating position should we want peace. Or we effectively destroy Carthage, should that be our objective. In either case, we could gain a stable peace, and many new lands. The war against Carthage cannot be over while they still have the ability or will to strike us in Sicily or Italy.

If I am elected Consul, my primary goal will be to see the Carthaginian threat eliminated quickly and decisively. If, on the other hand, you wish this conflict to drag on, with our lands continuously threatened, then feel free to vote for someone else.

First of all, Senator Quintus, may I both congratulate you and apologise to you. I must confess I came to this Noble House full of ire at what I saw as your warmongering against the mighty Carthaginians. However, now I have read your consular report I see that I was most hasty. The crucifixion of 2 Roman Citizens by Carthage was quite simply a crime that could not go unpunished! Furthermore, I believe that the conquest of Sicily does not even begin to avenge their great crime! This house knows my feelings on expansion & declaring war by our noble Republic, but Carthage must be made to pay! I shall not be satisfied till they are on their knees begging us for peace!

My father is correct when he says that we need a fleet, both for offense and defense. Without a fleet, our lands lie at the mercy of Carthage who have the ability to land troops at will anywhere along our extensive coastlines. We need a fleet at the very least to protect Rome. But my father is also correct to point out that even a small fleet could transport an army to the city of Carthage before they even knew they were there. I would delight in our troops looting treasure from their royal palaces and stripping the gold from their temples. Perhaps, once we have stripped the city to the bone we could offer it back to them in return for peace?

But I let my desire for revenge take my thoughts too far into the future. We must build a fleet and we must avenge ourselves on Carthage. We must vote for my father, Tiberius Coruncanius

Some of the opinions of my fellow senators confuse me.

You talk of consalidating our current holdings and raising more fleets and armies. Let us not forget that everyday Gaul grows in power as they too consolidate their lands. Soon, we may find a Gaulic Army at the doors of Rome herself. Then again, they may never come.

Right now all we have is speculation. I think it is unlikely that Carthage will accpet a ceasefire, they have many advantages now: stornger navy, more settlements to draw troops from etc. That means we can only hold them off until we are ready to challenge them for control of the seas. Let us leave the first Consular army in Scilia, so that we can repel any attack.

Then comes the issue of Gaul, I think they are ready for war, and we are not. We should raise at least another Legion to head north and support Legio II. This will allow us to protect our lands, and launch a counter-attack at short notice. This should please all of us here in the Senate, it will give us infinite options and choices for future conquests of Rome.

Senator Tiberius Coruncanius, I must ask your views....perhaps ideas on a few issues that correspond to your manifesto.

Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal that we need a significant naval presence and you have appraised the Senate that several of the Greek settlements we have liberated have the technology to build ships, although quite weak when compared to those that sail from Carthage. This idea interests me greatly and my question is thus: Would it be wise or even fiscally better to seek other Greek settlements with similar or even more advanced ports?

I think to those in Illyria initially due to there location near to us.

My next question deals with logistics. How much land does Carthage control? Do you see yourself as Consul securing Carthage herself, or would that fall to the next Consul or the one beyond that?

Now, lastly, the Gauls. I am certain I speak for many when I ask what measures for our security do you intend against any Gallic incursions? I personally would rather countance a short expansion to secure those Gallic lands directly to our North prior to committing fully to the conquest of Carthage. To my knowledge, the Gauls are still yet to be united and all we will do is remove their disparent states and cease being a bordering nation with them.....a lack of direct borders often leads to a swift resolution of hostilities.

I am, like you, not overtly concerned with the Gauls other than the tactical placement of their lands to the North. They are, in effect, the gateway to Italy and then Roma.

Should we not be the gate keeper?

I believe you hold the Gallic warriors with too much caution, I strongly suspect that a small force can secure our borders for many seasons to come and well within 3 years.

It would but be a minor diversion whilst we prepare fully for Carthage, would it not?

My fellow senators,
Once again I will run for the the office of first consul. I place myself in the exalted company of my fellow candidates to win your favour.

Consul Quintus has won a crushing victory, but a glance at our territory shows we have had to pay a heavy price for his bold offensives. Our economy is severely underdeveloped and our armies are battered and too few in number. We deperately need to reorganize and build. Why, without revenues from the new ports from Sicily we would be facing financial disaster ! The time has come to build and reorganize.
I agree with senator Tiberius Coruncanius that we should be wary of the Cartheginians and need to prepare a fleet to take the war to them. This is an expensive and long term operation and will not task our budget overmuch, as most of the required facilities are now in our hands thanks to Consul Quintus.
I also agree with most of the senate that the Gauls should be pushed back over the Alps where they belong. That said, I must say I was shocked to learn that no guard towers had been build at our northern frontier to give us advance warning of a possible Gaul raid while most of the army was away fighting in the south. I find this a serious oversight, but will leave it at that, considering the consul's long list of sucesses in his 5-year reign.

Should you elect me, I will concentrate on bringing our economy out of its sorry state and improving our standing armies and garrisons. A start will be made at building a fleet the moment the dockyard is finished, and construction of other ports will be a high priority to speed up the construction process.
When a small fleet has been assembled and a small praetorian army becomes available, I will attempt to capture our neighbouring islands which are held by Carthage. They will provide us with stepping stones for our eventual invasion of Afrika itself.
The moment troops are available another praetorian army will begin the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul. Loath as I am to make a third nation our enemy, we need to attack out of strategic necessity. We need to capture the strategically vital city of Patavium and expand our borders to the mountain passes. Then we will have a strong and secure frontier, which can be more easily defended.
Accordingly, I will send out more diplomats to bring in more trade and perhaps forge an alliance with the Iberians against Carthage. Most importantly, I will attempt to broker a peace deal with the Greeks, so we can profit from the valuable trade which this nation generates and will not need to fight on three fronts at once.
The remaining troops will be divided across our newly acquired territories to provide security while these goals are accomplished.

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Motion #4 has been withdrawn by Senator Sextus Antio.

I remind the Senators, and especially the candidates, that if they intend to go to war with Gaul in the first two and a half years, it would be advisable to propose a motion enabling that in advance, otherwise it will be hard to secure the required Senate backing. Some motions do authorise war, but candidates should be content with their form of words or propose alternatives.

Senator Aemilius, I have but one question:

You speak of extending your borders to the mountain passes. Once Jenuensis, Bononia, Mediolanium, and Patavium have been taken, what then? Will you continue to expand? Make peace with Gaul? Guard your borders?

I fear we Romans have too much taste for glory and not enough for comfort. What good are victories if there are no Romans at home to enjoy the spoils?

As I think very complicated motions will tend to be voted down I will propose seperate and simple motions, which will however overlap with existing ones, but will allow the senate to specify their desires more exactly. My apologies to the scribes in advance.

Motion #4 : An attempt should be made to conquer Cispine Gaul (requires declaration of war with Gaul).

Motion #7 : An attempt should be made to further weaken the power of Carthage (will require the building of a fleet).

Motion #8 : An attempt should be made to make peace with the Greeks (requires sending a new diplomat).

Motion #9 : We should construct a fleet.

Motion #10 : An attempt should be made to create an alliance with the Iberians, with the goal of further weakening Carthage's power.

Furthermore, I would advise other senators that they can propose a motion to make peace with Carthage (I won't, as I do not desire it yet). They can also propose a motion to award consul Quintus an Ovation instead of a full triumph if they think he does not deserve one, but that he has done well anyway (I won't do that either, but I can see some discontent in the senate).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Senator Aemilius, I have but one question:

You speak of extending your borders to the mountain passes. Once Jenuensis, Bononia, Mediolanium, and Patavium have been taken, what then? Will you continue to expand? Make peace with Gaul? Guard your borders?

I fear we Romans have too much taste for glory and not enough for comfort. What good are victories if there are no Romans at home to enjoy the spoils?

---

Senator GeneralHankerchief, I will cease expansion, as we will be overstretching ourselves already by then. I only advise to do this, as it will significantly improve our strategic position. Especially Patavium is immensely important for our security. I will station on a strong garrison there and a praetorian army within striking distance of all four towns. I will also construct guard towers to watch for an approaching army. I will also endeavour to make peace with the Gauls after my strategic objectives have been reached, but I will not resume trade with them as this has been forbidden by this house.

Treason! Senators, the Republic is being encouraged to ruin for personal glory and private gain! My most 'honored' collegues, Tiberius Coruncanius and Lucius Aemilius, seek to plunder and loot, no matter the cost to the Republic.

Senator Coruncanius agrees with me that Gaul is not worth the effort of a major offensive when so many provinces are lacking in infrastructure and our Legions are stretched thin. Yet at the same time, he proposes that we launch a full scale invasion of Africa! For this, he requires that we build port facilities, a massive invasion fleet, and enough Legions to take on the Punic foe at the very heart of his power, yet he also expects to expand the auxilia network and economic trade system. Senators, where is this money to come from? It is true that we have a seasonal income of nearly 10,000 dinarii, yet has any of you even considered the cost of the improvements which we all agree are required? Basic road networks alone will cost us 6,000 per province, and there are five provinces with such needs. The first phase of Auxilia training will cost 3,000 dinarii per province and seven provinces have need of this, most basic of improvements. Shipwrights in Rome and Tarentum, necessary if we are to engage in any prolonged conflict with the naval powers of Greece and Carthage, will cost 10,000 dinarii each! Just these three most necessary of improvements will cost us nearly two full years of the Treasury's income, and that does not include the cost of further economic and military improvements, the construction of a fleet capable of dominating our enemies and of Legions strong enough to invade another continent! Even the 10,000 dinarii income is deceiving, as our rapid military build-up will quickly reduce this down to a small amount, even if our foes decide not to blockade our ports with their powerful navies. An expedition against Punic Africa is not mere folly, my brothers, it risks the lives of every single Roman and puts the Republic in vastly unneeded danger.

As for Senator Lucius Aemilius, he desires to build our economy, prioritizing foremost the most expensive, yet necessary, naval facilities, while simultaneously invading the Carthaginian islands and taking all of Cisalpine Gaul. This is sheer insanity. Certainly, we can build fleets strong enough to defeat Carthage and Greece. Certainly, we can take the island provinces. Certainly we can take Cisalpine Gaul. What we cannot do is all of this at once! Senator Lucius Aemilius plans on capturing Cisalpine Gaul and I believe he can do it. No foe can withstand the might of Roman arms, but capturing a place and holding a place are two very different things. Senator Aemilius speaks as if holding the Alpine passes is a simple thing. His solution is to station a single Praetorian Army to cover all four provinces with the aid of a 'strong' garrison in Patavium. Yet three of those provinces cannot even be protected with walls, leaving them vulnerable to a lightning attack by the Gauls who will move before his Army react. In addition, the Gauls are not likely to great our Legions with flowers in their arms. There will be great unrest and garrisons will be needed to prevent any revolts by the barbarians. We will be sinking money into these provinces, but for what gain? It will take decades before any of them prove economically useful. These are barbarian towns, not civilized cities such as we have taken up to now. We will need to occupy and greatly invest in these provinces before we ever see any return at all. It will be a vast drain on our treasury, not a windfall. So what other reason is there? Security? Only a blind man could see more security in the occupation of four hostile provinces bordered by two barbaric peoples with five avenues of attack than in the strengthening of a border of merely two strong, Italian provinces that have a mere three avenues of attack. Gaul is our enemy, to be sure. They must pay in blood for their crimes against Rome, but now is not the time. What Senator Lucius Aemilius proposes will bankrupt the Republic for the sake of some smelly barbarian hovels!

Senators, I plead with you, show these short-sighted men that you are not as foolish. Examine the state of the world and explore the true costs of military, economic and infrastructure development for yourselves. We will risk all if we continue with massive campaigning against strong foes. We may win such a contest, it is most certainly possible. Yet such a win would still be a loss. Why conquer when the conquests bring less gain than domestic development? Why risk all when we can have all with no risk?

Perhaps Lucius Aemilius is excessively influenced by his 'Merchant' friend, who we all know is his oldest and most trusted advisor. Perhaps Tiberius Coruncanius needs more land for his extensive family. I do not know their motives for such folly that will benefit none but the looters and the priests. You all know me and you know my reputation. I am no great governor, no great politician. I am a simple military man, but I my loyalty to the Republic is known far and wide. Of the three of us, I would benefit the most from a prolonged military campaign, yet I oppose such a venture. I am loyal to the Republic. No loyal Roman would ever take such a risk with our very existence.

Senators, ask yourselves, where do your loyalties lie?

How corrupt some senators have become, when wealth and power are in their sights. They seek not the good of the Roman people, but the advancement of themselves. They speak of foolish notions, such as invading Africa, instead of using our wealth for common good, rather than for the glory of a few.

Well said, Senator Virginus; well said indeed. I have nothing to add on to, but perhaps you should run for Consul yourself. You would have my support if you did.

I am in fact running for Consul, though only out of a desire to serve the Republic and not for personal glory. My manifesto was made public yesterday, but it can be found in the Senate Library along with those of my colleagues.

Might I implore certain senators to realize that many of the improvements they speak of building throughout the empire are very very costly. Indeed thopse that are not beyond the capabilities of our current treasury would require the vast majority of the treasury. How much do you really propose to build considering our current financial constraints? Regardless of how much you envisage yourself of constructing i will tell you that you will find yourself and your dreams severely disappointed by our limited treasury.

As to those who propose fleets of warships to combat established naval powers such as Greece and Carthage I propose the same question. How much do you really propose to build considering our current financial constraints? Assembling such a fleet would require entire treasuries and leave little or no money for anything else.

Do you really believe that you can speak a word and fleets and stone roads will spring into being?

Our treasury needs to be increased. It must always be increased. And indeed the most permanent and most cost effective way in which to do this is through conquest.

Perhaps the worst crime in proposing such lengthy periods of peace is the cost of maintaining all of these armies which we have assembled. Paying these men to do nothing when they could instead be put to good use increasing our wealth and influence. Proposing to leave them to lie about is a horridly inefficient use of resources. Suddenly these armies become a burden rather than an asset.

What is this, Verginus? You are listing random buildings, saying how much they cost, and presenting that as proof that our treasury cannot support a war with Carthage? We do not need shipwrights, we do not need auxilia, we do not need road networks. We have, at this very moment, nearly 10 provinces in which we can build Aphracts, which only cost 700 each. Our treasury and current income can easily support the acquisition of 20 or so we'll need over the course of a year.

And what do you suggest we do instead? Sit around and wait for the Carthaginians to march on Rome? I only propose what is necessary to ensure the survival of the Republic.