The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations

[flyd]

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.

[shifty157]

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.

[TinCow]

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)

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.

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.

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?

[flyd]

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

[TinCow]

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.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

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.

[econ21]

[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.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

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

[Braden]

(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.

[Avicenna]

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.

[Ignoramus]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[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.

[TinCow]

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

[Braden]

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.

[Dutch_guy]

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....

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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 !

[econ21]

[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.

[Avicenna]

I would like to second motion 5.5.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I second the following:

5.4
5.12

[Braden]

My master will second motion #5.8

[shifty157]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

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.

[Mount Suribachi]

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?

[econ21]

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

[Mount Suribachi]

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.

[Glaucus]

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.

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[SwordsMaster]

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

Seconded.

[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