The Curia

[/Bean\]

Caivs Avrelivs looked down upon the figure of Norbanvs below him.

Oh for the god's sakes, who allowed this idiot to speak first? Ok, let me take this slow, just for the young ones here. He looked purposefully at the young Tribune of the Plebs, and several Senators laughed knowingly.

They can call themselves what they wish, however I am suggesting we cease to refer to them as Epirites. We have expelled them from their homeland, and all Italia should know of it, and we should be proud of our victory. Refusing to acknowledge them as Epirites shows our victory clearly. And stop playing dumb. Of course we won't call them Romans. You're acting like a silly child.

And we hardly need to station a legion in their lads. One will be needed in Epirus anyway. If the former Epirites are in desperate need of aid, they can file a formal request with the governer of Epirus for the use of the Roman legion to protect their land. If the governer sees fit, and the Senate agrees, Roman aid may be sent, as long as not too much risk is put upon the soldiers of the Republic. And without an army of their own, how will the Epirites argue against this?

I think you need to spend more time in school before coming to these important Senate sessions, young Norbanvs.

[mini]

Norbanus raised an eyebrow at the personal thacks, but chose to be the better man and ignore them.

"What does it matter what we call them? If you want Rome to know about the victory - like they don't already - you should organise a Triumphus. Futile measures as to call a people by a different name are a waste of time. Should we conquer Gallia and start calling the Gauls Hoempapoemparameans? Just because we conquered them and want to show it to the People? Ridiculous.
Romans always feted victories with triumphal parades and didn't lower themselves to such petty measures as you here propose.

As for the protectorate, I stand by my point. Why should we taken on the extra burden of protecting lands that are not our own, but of people we fought a gruelling war with?
Either we conquer them as a province, or we install a King that is roman-orientated (OOCclient ruler) or let them fend for themselves.

And if you want to refute me, do it with solid arguements instead of personal thacks. Rather distasteful oratory in my opinion."

Norbanus sat down dignantly

[/Bean\]

Caivs Avrelivs litened with increased disbelief. Who the hell did this guy think he was?

I should organise a Triumphvs, Tribune? Oh, now there's a thought. Oh wait, I forgot. I did. And it hasn't happened yet. I guess you were too young at the time to remember. Is it not right that the Romans should be proud of their victories?

I think you must have some sort of special attatchment to these barbarians. We, as Romans and as Victors, are the master race. We look down upon all lesser beings with scorn. It is our role. Other Italians are the best, just after that of the Romans. The Greeks themselves probably next, though to a lesser extent great. But these Illyrians, Thracians and other unclean barbarians do not deserve such a place in our world. We have defeated the Epirites. The soldiers that remain fighting against us are not from Epirus, they are from Makedonia, or Thrace, or Dacia, and other dirty places.

You are not a very good Roman if you do nothing but stand by these barbarians and fight for their rights in a world where they would neither thank you for it, nor return the favour. You have not seen these men, Tribune. You have not fought against them for years, seen them betray, rape, murder and pillage. You should see the state of their homes, nothing but dirty circular huts, with dirt floors and no chimneys. They coer themselves with paint and mud, and eat the flesh of humans if they run low on food. These are savages we fight, Senators, not civilised Greeks.

And stop huffing and puffing over a few sharp words, boy. I called you young and inexperienced, as it is what you are. The fact you grow angry and cry when reminded so only boosts my point.

[The Celtic Viking]

"What point is there in calling them something else? It's but changing a word, and you may call the Epirotes Gauls if you like, but that won't change what they are. I do not support it, at least not until you've given a reason for doing so."

(OOC: I disagree with having them as an actual protectorate, but just making them our allies, giving us military access, map info + a sum to be given for 12 turns (which is renewed after that possibly with a changed sum depending on the Epirites situation), that I would agree with. We would simply get too much through "the real deal".)

[SwissBarbar]

(OOC: I disagree with having them as an actual protectorate, but just making them our allies, giving us military access, map info + a sum to be given for 12 turns (which is renewed after that possibly with a changed sum depending on the Epirites situation), that I would agree with. We would simply get too much through "the real deal".)

OOC: Ok, but what's the difference? If we have "military access, map info + a sum to be given for 12 turns (which is renewed after that possibly with a changed sum depending on the Epirites situation)" and they are our allies, they technically would be our Protectorate, we just don't call it so officially.

Forcing them to be a protectorate is not linked to a certain sum, they would have to pay, is it? You would have to specify yourself how much that is. Therefore wheres the difference between Protectorate and "Forced Ally, who must pay tribute, give us military access and map information" ?

[/Bean\]

"What point is there in calling them something else? It's but changing a word, and you may call the Epirotes Gauls if you like, but that won't change what they are. I do not support it, at least not until you've given a reason for doing so."

(OOC: I disagree with having them as an actual protectorate, but just making them our allies, giving us military access, map info + a sum to be given for 12 turns (which is renewed after that possibly with a changed sum depending on the Epirites situation), that I would agree with. We would simply get too much through "the real deal".)

I do not want these people to keep their armies and their wealth, along with a thirst for vengence, Senator. How long do you think the ceasefire will last in such circumstances?

And for the last time, I do not talk of changing the Epeirites name. I talk to calling her former allies by what they are; Thracians, Dacians and the like. The forces residing in northern Makedonia are not Epirites. Why should we call them so? The Byzantians were allied with Pyhrrus, but they are not Epirites.

OOC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not necessarily an In-game protectorate, I know how imbalanced those are. I mean we force the rights of a protectorate, like a fine, and alliance and military access, like you said.

[mini]

"Show me where I got angry? I only asked you in a polite way to have a polite debate in a civilised manner. But apparently so many years in the field have made you forgot the Senate is not the autocratic environment the Legions are, and we are not be spoken to as the next common ranker.

By organising your triumph, I meant to setup a vote for it (which you can do by quick vote under my new legilsation after next session) and I'll gladly vote yes as I feel you earned one and I am as proud of our victory as the next Roman.

We have called the Epeiros 'Epeiros' for centuries. And unless we eradicate them from the world, I'll continue to call them by that name.
But f you want to push this ridiculous piece of legislation through the next session, you can do so. I am sure you can get enough cronies to vote yes to see it pass no problem. Yet I'll keep on calling them by whatever name I have always called them.

As for the protectorate, I shall remain adamently opposed. It will not pass into vote."

Norbanus sat down calmly, unpertubed by the rist of personal thacks.

[The Celtic Viking]

OOC: Ok, but what's the difference? If we have "military access, map info + a sum to be given for 12 turns (which is renewed after that possibly with a changed sum depending on the Epirites situation)" and they are our allies, they technically would be our Protectorate, we just don't call it so officially.

Forcing them to be a protectorate is not linked to a certain sum, they would have to pay, is it? You would have to specify yourself how much that is. Therefore wheres the difference between Protectorate and "Forced Ally, who must pay tribute, give us military access and map information" ?

OOC: The thing is that we don't get as much mnai (unless you guys really want to get ridiculous). It would be our protectorate, and we would see it as such, we just wouldn't use the in-game protectorate thing because that would give us ridiculous amounts of mnai.

[SwissBarbar]

OOC: The thing is that we don't get as much mnai (unless you guys really want to get ridiculous). It would be our protectorate, and we would see it as such, we just wouldn't use the in-game protectorate thing because that would give us ridiculous amounts of mnai.

OOC: Well, that's fine with me, no problem. I did not know that the in-game protectorate thing automatically gives you money. I though you had to claim money if you wanted some, and there you could specify. I thought you can claim 1 mnai per turn if you wanted, as a tribute from a protectorate, and no more. But if I get you right, I'm wrong? Could you please explain in the OOC-Thread, I really did not know

[/Bean\]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes TCV, thats what I always wanted. I agree with you. We just need to call it a Protectorate for RP reasons. Get what I'm sayin?

Oh and Swiss, a protectorate makes the protected faction automatically give the protector a large portion of their seasonly income. Because each AI faction gets money from the script, thats basically just like doing the add_money cheat.

[The Celtic Viking]

I do not want these people to keep their armies and their wealth, along with a thirst for vengence, Senator. How long do you think the ceasefire will last in such circumstances?

And for the last time, I do not talk of changing the Epeirites name. I talk to calling her former allies by what they are; Thracians, Dacians and the like. The forces residing in northern Makedonia are not Epirites. Why should we call them so? The Byzantians were allied with Pyhrrus, but they are not Epirites.

OOC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not necessarily an In-game protectorate, I know how imbalanced those are. I mean we force the rights of a protectorate, like a fine, and alliance and military access, like you said.

OOC: Uhm... I am for a protectorate if done the way I said it. That's why I didn't address it IC, so I don't get the first part, since it seems to be formed as a counter-argument to an argument I never made.

Secondly, when I was writing my message you had only written your first message. There was no further explanation there for me to refer to at the time. However, this is then not about "showing our victory" or whatever, but just changing because they don't contol a specific region any more. You must admit it was very confusing.

Personally, I don't really care.

[Iskander 3.1]

Exomnivs rose
Caivs Avrelivs, first please accept my apology for some accusations that you may have heard me utter in the past. I do agree with your proposals, including how we should addressed the conquored. This Pleb seems to think that speaking for the common Roman is not enough; he thinks he must now speak for the common barbarian, too!
As for the Pyrrhitic Allies, or whatever we do decide to call them, I agree that we should enact a hefty tribute to help in our effort against the Carthaginians. The remaining territories should be kept under local control to keep the area stable.

[navarro951]

Cornelius Blasio speaks...

"Gentlemen I must depart. If there are no objections, I will take command of the fifth as word has been received that Legate Appivs Nero is indisposed at the moment. I bid you all a farewell."

OOC: As desert is banned for the moment, we must get things going. As Blasio is closest ill only take command for a bit then hand the command to one of the newer players so they can get some CPs.

[/Bean\]

Fine with me

[SwissBarbar]

"Agreed.

Concerning another matter: Again I must insist on clear orders for Legio II. When shall it return to Italy and when will it be adapted to the reforms?"

[navarro951]

"Agreed.

Concerning another matter: Again I must insist on clear orders for Legio II. When shall it return to Italy and when will it be adapted to the reforms?"

OOC: As Blasio is leaving ill simply tell you in my own opinion, and as GM, id say as soon as Legio III is done, because then Legio III can defend Illyria while Legio II is reformed, and then another switch can be made like so.

[everyone]

(OOC: I decided not the make Manius Claudius here because he's got the "prospective triumphator", which means he can't enter Rome)

A man arrives in the Curia, bearing a message for Spurius Claudius Cicero.
Spurius Claudius reads the message and grins.

"Senatores, I have good news from our Consul Manius Claudius; Sicilia has been secured and the Carthaginian stronghold of Lilibeo has fallen to the Consular Legion! Rome's Legions triumph once again."

he reads the message again.

"and Consul Manius also wishes to inform the military commanders that, since his term is coming to an end, he leaves these directions for the next consul of the Legions:
-Legio III should be restructured first
-the Consular legion should be restructured and/or replenished next
-in the case that we are still at war with the Aiakides (Epirus), new troops should be trained for Legio II and transported to Ambracia, and the veterans given their honesta missio.
-the same should be done for Legio I, whose veterans have served since the time Pyrrhus invaded.
once again, these directions are optional, but suggested."

[navarro951]

Blasio's man in the Curia, Titus....

"A sound plan, and extend Consul Cornelius Blasio's congratulations to the Consul as I am sure he would have it due."

[navarro951]

"The Seventh Congressional Council is now open! It will remain open for debate and legislation until April 14, 2009 at 1700 Pacific; at which point there will be 48 hours allotted for voting."

[navarro951]

Cornelius Blasio returns to the Curia...

"Ave senatores! My first order of buisness for this council will be to propose Edict 7.1: That peace be proclaimed to bring a final end to this war with Epeiros so we can focus our efforts on Carthage. The war with them has dragged on long enough now and we have dealt countless defeats to them now. They also gained alliances with both the Aedui and Koinon Hellenon nations, and we must not drag ourselves into multiple wars."

[Iskander 3.1]

I unreservedly second Edict 7.1!

[/Bean\]

Caivs Avrelivs Aqvila, having arrived earlier from Epirus itself, rose, and took the floor.

I would like to support Edict 7.1, but I must stress it may not be so simple as to simply draw a peace solution and evacuate roman forces from Epirus and Illyria in order to fight Carthage.

Having taken the heart of the enemy kingdom, and defeating and killing their legendary king in battle, it is unlikely we can simply bring these people to peace with us. They still have large enough forces to threaten us. If Roman forces are to be evacuated, it would be all to easy for them to sweep through Epirus and reclaim it.

We have plenty enough legions to wage this war with Carthage, and despite the disatrous defeat of the Legio III, Sicilia is now firmly in Roman hands, thanks to the skill and leadership of Consul Manivs Clavdivs Cicero Aqvila. Legio III should be reformed according to our new legion reforms, and should be able to return to the field soon enough. We do not need to employ every one of our legions in this war, when we still have new lands over seas. The Legio II should remain in Epirus until a Provincial Legion is created, and then return to Italia for a deserved period of rest, before reformation. Its future will be discussed later.

Further on this point, I would like to emphasise the need for an Epirite Provincial Legion to be created, starting as soon as I return to Epirus. We must begin to actively protect our holdings with Provincial Legions, allowing our standard legions to return home. I am not proposing this as an edict, since it should not need one to be created.

Moving on to what I would like to propose; the recent catastrophe concerning the humiliating defeat of the Legio III must be addressed. It is propostrous that a Roman commander can allow this to happen with men of Italia, trusted to his care and command by the Senate and People of Roma. A Legion is not just a tool of war; it is made of Roman citizens, a highly valued resource. To command a Legion of Roma is a privalage, and with such high power comes great responsibility.

Caivs Avrelivs Aqvila began to pace the circumference of the Curia floor, inches from each Senator, his voice rising to fill the hall, his arm gestures matching the tenor of his voice.

Legatvs' Servivs Sempronivs Longvs and Deciumus Cornelius Scipio, the commanding officers of the Legio III, are responsible for it's humiliating defeat by the forces of Carthage. Had it not been for the Consul Manivs Clavdivs Aqvila, the Punics would surely have swept back our remaining forces on Sicilia and reclaimed the island. Such a set back would have been disastrous for Roma and the war. Servivs Sempronivs Longvs and Deciumus Cornelius Scipio must pay for their incompetence. Had it not been for Consul Manivs Clavdivs Aqvila, Roma would have been in a very dangerous situation because of these two men.

Caivs Avrelivs Aqvila unrolled a scroll that he clutched in his hand.

I have here a report of our losses suffered in Sicilia. Our total losses stand at a staggering almost six thousand men, including over six hundred Roman knights and over three thousand heavy infantry. Such losses are inexcusable. Someone must take responsibility. It must be the Legio commanders. Who else can it be?

Therefore, gentlemen of the Senate, I propose Edict 7.2: Servivs Sempronivs Longvs and Deciumus Cornelius Scipio must be removed of command concerning the Legio III. They may not recover any command for a period of six years (2 Congressional Sessions) after which they may return to only small or simple commands of which they house little overall command power concerning foreign campaigns or active defensive actions. Our legion commanders are the faces of Roma; they are the men that portray how Roma is to the world, to the enemies we fight. If we produce such incompetent men as our ambassadors to the world, we are truely a shameless and weak nation. These men blacken not just themselves, but all of Roma and all Romans, including each and every one of you, Senators. You can redeem yourselves only by supporting this edict.

Now, onto a lighter note, I would like to return to my praise for Consul Manivs Clavdivs Cicero Aqivla. Our consul is a true and proper Roman, and a superb military commander, possibly our best since the great Cnaevs Cornelivs Scipio Asina. Not only did he singlely lead our forces to victory in a foreign land, southern Gaul, but also caputured large areas of this area, creating a new Roman Province. This would be reason enough, but no. Our Consul then return to Italia to take up command of the Consular legion, and immediately headed into Sicilia, capturing the cities of Messana and Lilybraem, and securing a lasting alliance with the great city state of Syracusai. This, once again, is not all. For he has also defeat great odds on Sicilia, and capturing the Carthaginian commander on Sicilia, Hamalcar. Such victories are indeed rare and incredible, and deserved to be highly celebrated.

Therefore, Senators, I propose Edict 7.3: Consul Manivs Clavdivs Cicero Aqvila be granted a Triumphvs in Roma, upon which he will parade the captured Carthaginian commander Hamalcar, before the latter be executed for crimes against the Republic of Roma.

I thank you for your patience and your ears, Senators. And I beg you to consider deeply the connotations of not voting for these two edicts. Thank you.

Caivs Avrelivs Cotta Aqvila sat to a considerable amount of applause from many Senators for his invigorating and charismatic speech.

[The Celtic Viking]

Pvblivs Atilivs rose.

"I will immediately second both Edict 7.2 and Edict 7.3. It is only fair that we let disgraceful defeat be punished and glorious victory be rewarded."

[/Bean\]

I thank you for your immediate and unwavering support of Roman justice in both forms, Pvblivs Atilivs.

Caivs Avrelivs Aqvila nodded.

[SwissBarbar]

As for every Senatorial Session, Avlvs Aemilivs had come to Roma to take part in it. After having heard the Senatores' propositions he arose and spoke

"Senatores, please hear me!

I second Edict 7.2 and Edict 7.3, and I would second Edict 7.1 if it was decorated by plans what to offer and of course to demand from the defeated enemy, before granting peace.

I propose a new version of Edict 7.1.

Edict 7.1.2.: That peace be proclaimed to bring a final end to this war with Epeiros so we can focus our efforts on Carthage.

The following claims be demanded:

1. The kingdom, formerly known as Epeiros and in this edict referred to as "the defeated ones", must disarm its professional armies and may only muster enough forces to protect its cities from the savage tribes of the Getae from the north and the armies of the Makedonians and Koinon Hellenon from the south. (OOC: we disband their current armies on the field through cheat)

2. The defeated ones must deliver 66 Talents of silver per year to the Roman Republic as reparation payment. (OOC: 1000 Mnai per turn, explanation below)

3. The defeated ones must not attack another people without the Roman Senates' expressed permission, except if they're attacked by a certain people. (OOC: we control their expansion in Greece)

4. Roman armies have the right to set foot on the lands of the defeated ones whenever the Roman Senate pleases to do so. Furthermore the mighty armies of Roma must be supplied by the local governors of the defeated ones whenever asked for. (OOC: military access)

5. The defeated ones must allow inspection of their notations and maps of the known world. (OOC: map information)

6. The defeated ones must accept the Roman Republic's good intentions as true and no longer seek bitter enmity, but friendship, trade and cooperation with Roma. (OOC: allies and trade rights)

As a quid pro quo, the Roman Republic grants the defeated ones as follows:

1. The defeated ones be known as our allies in all political and military matters and calculations. (OOC: allies)

2. The defeated ones have the right to carry on commerce with Roma (OOC: trade rights)

3. Forthwith the defeated ones shall no longer be addressed as "the defeated ones", but as "allies of Rome" or by any expression the Roman Senate sees fit. (OOC: We give them a new name, as we shall call them. After their current capital city or so.)

What say you, Senatores? If you ask yourselves what gave me the idea of 66 Talents as reparation payment: It's 1 Talent for every fallen, and 1/3 Talent for every injured Roman soldier, caused by Epeiros' weapons. (OOC: 1 Talent Silver = 60 Mnai = 6000 Drachmae = it's ca. how much a sailing ship cost at those ages)

[The Celtic Viking]

"I cannot agree with it. The first point is ridiculous and rather tedious. I do not care for it, and I do not like having some law forcing me to address a faction a certain way to appease the hate of one, or even a thousand, senators."

(OOC: it would automatically make me break the law, if I ever come to mention them again. It would probably also do the same to any new guy who wish to do so. Not a good idea. Remove that part and we can talk.

Point three I disagree with for OOC reasons. I do not like the idea of us getting involved in with how any other faction expands in the way you seem to suggest.)

[SwissBarbar]

"You misunderstood point 1"

(OOC possible, that you misunderstood point 1 as "we should call them the defeated ones from now on"? That's not the case. It's only how I call them in this edict. In the last point I proposed to call them "allies of rome" from now on, or friends or whatever)

[navarro951]

Hmm...my good friend Caivs Cotta, I must disagree with you on the matter that Epeiros still poses a threat to us. If they had even the slightest bit of capable military ability at the moment, they would have used it against us to take back their homeland, their own capital at least. Their vile king was slain, they have lost the dominant amount of there economic output and income, they are a beaten and wounded animal at this point. But what they are starting to gain is friends. Friends whom I and most senators here, I believe, would not wish to wage war with. So again I say, we propose a white peace with them keeping what we have gained, offering a hand in trade with them as well as topography information, and leave them ashamed and embarrassed as the loser in our drawn out war.

[/Bean\]

Caivs Avrelivs Aqvila stood.

With all due respect, Cnaevs Cornelivs Aqvila, I have spent a good ten years fighting these people. I have spent the last four as governer in their former lands. I know better than anyone the situation in Epeiros, and beyond it to their former allies past the mountains, in Makedonia and Byzantion. Believe when I tell you they would accept a peace treaty only to use it against us to give them time to prepare for another war. I do not disagree that a peace treaty should be drawn up, but let us not make the mistake of thinking the barbarians across the mountains are the honourable Greeks that we have beaten.

[everyone]

OOC: darn I accidentally refreshed the page while typing this 3/4s

Spurius Claudius rises;

"Consul Manius Claudius would like me to propose this rule change; as according the amendment he proposed the previous session:

OOC: to be added to wherever it should belong to.

RC 7.1:
in the case of distances that would prevent the player's character from reaching their destination within a turn in-game, the "move_character" console command may be used to transport only the bodyguard (not army) of that player's character to his new appointment.

If the problem of Roman internal names prevent the player's character from being transported by the console command, a 'host character' may be used, who could be move_charactered. after the 'host' has been moved together with the target character, the host is to be moved via console command back to his original location, using "character_reset" to restore his movement points to the maximum/original amount if necessary

The moving of characters by console may only be used when:
-the character is appointed as provincial governor to a province
-the character is appointed as the Legatus/commander of a legion
-the character has been appointed Quaestor by the Consul of Finance with or without the request of a provincial governor
-the character has been appointed Tribunus or commander of any legion by the Consul of the Legions with or without the request of a provincial governort
-the Character has been elected Tribune of the Plebs, Consul of Finance or Consul of the Legions
and has to be transported to their destination.

furthermore he wishes to propose the following charter amendment:

to be added as rule 3.10.1, or whatever it should be after the FAQ has been updated.
CA 7.1:
Rule X.XX.X
As the Aemilian reforms define Praetors, Consuls and whoever else choosing a province to govern at every congressional session; the following provinces are defined from territories under the Senate and People of Rome in 254 BC, and may be updated at every congressional session to reflect new holdings.
the updating of provincial boundaries shall be voted on by every senator available (OOC: all the players who voted in the session) if the changes are large; and voted on by the Consuls and Praetors of that session if the changes are minute.

Provinces, 254BC

Provincia Sicilia
Messena
Syrakousai*
Lilibeo

Provincia Gallia Cisalpina
Bononia
Segesta
Patavium

Provincia Gallia Transalpina:
Massalia*
Tolosa

Provincia Illyria et Dalmatia:
Segestica
Dalminion

Provincia Illyria et Epirus:
Epidamnos
Ambracia

cities marked with a * are allied states.

(OOC: probably, the provinces of Illyria et Dalmatia and et Epirus may be merged if required)

"Thank you."

Spurius takes his seat, awaiting responses from fellow senators to respond to Consul Manius' proposals

OOC EDIT:
be reminded that we not only need to elect new Consuls this session, but also a praetor and a new ToP