A little disappointing, Vringas, that you ignore the main points and focus on the periphery of the argument, with unclear and misleading questions. Nonetheless, I shall indulge you as I promised.

1. An irrelevant technicality. If we accept that Tagaris acts out of love, which I claimed in my statement, then his hand was forced. And he didn't "declare war" outright as much as he sanctioned an illegal marriage. Certainly, you can argue if it was a right thing to do or not, but the actual declaration of the war is only a minor legalism.

2. Ioannis. It could have, perhaps, remained a conflict between Ioannis (and his followers) and Tagaris, but Ioannis called on all Senators to enter the war. He said, "I hereby call upon all senators and nobles of the empire to declare their hand - now. I will have no neutrality. You either will declare against the Caesar, or against me." This is an escalation.

3. No, perhaps they expected to be able to deal with Ioannis in a reasonable fashion, and did not expect him to merely declare his decision in the Senate without any consultation of the father. Perhaps they were too optimistic.

4. You can look at the charter if you want legal definitions of the different strata in our society. If you want a semantic definition, you can look in a dictionary (probably from Latin rex, meaning king). I know you're trying to get at something here, but I don't know what. You could speak more plainly.

5. Is there a need to exercise every power to your personal advantage, even when it causes animosity among Senators, and starts civil wars and endangers the Empire, i.e. just because you can, must you?

6. "Some great crime" isn't a "title" and gives no legal distinction when applied. I used it as a descriptor, the sentence out of which you pulled the phrase said "If he defied, he can be punished." For a man who so often speaks against excessive legalism, you are certainly clinging onto words and definitions with an uncharacteristic ferocity.

Reply