The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations

[Ignoramus]

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! Senator Quintus has the experience and generalship to defeat Pyrrhus, and to drive him and his despicable Greeks across the sea, back where they belong! The Greeks will run like frightened boars at the sight of Quintus and his legions. Rome shall let the world know who is ruler of Italy!

[shifty157]

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! Senator Quintus has the experience and generalship to defeat Pyrrhus, and to drive him and his despicable Greeks across the sea, back where they belong! The Greeks will run like frightened boars at the sight of Quintus and his legions. Rome shall let the world know who is ruler of Italy!

I am curious as to why you say this. As far as i am aware sneator quintus has never bestowed upon us any concrete plans for what steps he would take upon potential aquisition of his post. I am merely curious as to what you are basing your assertion on.

To this end however i implore senator quintus to give us a detailed view into his strategies as i cannot say that i at least am fully aware of them.

[Ignoramus]

I believe Senator Quintus said:
"Then, when he is over-extended, we will strike repeatedly with a full consular army. We will defeat his captains, trap his garrisons and slowly dismember his army."
Is that not clear enough? Once he has killed Pyrrhus, it is only logical that he would capture the Greek cities in Italy. Thus, he would teach them not to defy the might of Rome.

[econ21]

[Quintus]:I am indebted to Senator Antio Sextus for his confidence in me.

I am curious as to why you say this. As far as i am aware sneator quintus has never bestowed upon us any concrete plans for what steps he would take upon potential aquisition of his post.

It is true, Senator Publius Laevinius, that my manifesto is short on detail but I hope my answers to the questions on the floor of this House have filled in some of the finer points.

Nonetheless, at the good Senator's request, I will sketch out my thinking so far.

As I have already communicated in private to those concerned, if elected I would install the Senator Publius Laevinius as governor of Roma; give Senator Tiberius Coruncanius command of a second, Praetorian, army; and make Senator Lucius Amelius military tribune in our first, Consular, army. These assignments are not based on backroom deals, but on an objective assessment of the current qualifications of these three fine Senators. Over time, as explained in Motion 9, I would seek to groom each of them for possible succession as First Consul.

What of Pyrrhus? My inclination is to take a Consular army north to quickly seize Arretium, leaving the Praetorian army near Roma to reinforce Capua and Ancona if threatened. A swift strike north move would net us an additional settlement straight away and encourage the Greeks to recklessly venture into our lands, thinking them lightly held. But immediately after the fall of Arretium, the Consular army would head south and, together with the Praetorian army, we would defeat the impudent Greeks. I will not go into details, as my strategy will be opportunistic. We will watch Pyrrhus and take advantage of any mistakes he makes, ideally giving battle in the most favorable of circumstances against isolated detachments and his callow captains before bringing down the warrior King himself.

Thereafter, I will march south with the Consular army in a series of conquests that will stop only when our troops reach the borders of Carthaginian territory. Likewise, the Praetorian army will march north and finish the work of conquering the rebel states to our north until they border Gaul. Over time, it will be built into a second Consular army capable of repelling any Gaullish invasion. Whether it should then be divided into two - one to cover the border, the other to defend Latium against invasion from the seas - I have yet to decide.

That is my roughly the strategy I envisage us following over the next five years. How long it will take to execute, I do not know. I confess it is largely theoretical, not based up exercises and drills with our troop as I fear such over-reherseasal would dampen their spontaneity and initiative when war starts for real. Consequently I would welcome any comments as to its practicality.

[Avicenna]

Senator Publius Laevinius, it seems that our bickering has come to no end, as neither of us are able to see the logic in the other's argument. Let us put aside our differences and co-exist in peace for the sake of Rome.

Senator Quintus: I see that you are the tactical expert that I thought you were, and I applaud you for your superb plan. However, I see no need to conquer Arretium only. With the small armies that the rebels command, our present Legions can divide and conquer, taking Ariminium as well, while also allowing Senator Tiberius Coruncanius to gain some military experience. Should we lose men, they can be replaced by soldiers from the third Legion, or, better still, we can have fresh recruits from Rome.

However, I must state my fear of Pyrrhus' army growing, and I urge a pre-emptive strike on his forces to lessen the casualties on our side.

[econ21]

[QUINTUS]: Once again, I thank the honorable Senator Tiberius for his kind words and agree that combating Pyrrhus is our first priority, which will require great care and some finesse to pull off efficiently.

I have a small nautical query I wonder if anyone, perhaps the Senate Fixer, can enlighten us on?

Over time, Rome must develop a navy both to defend against marauding Greeks and to gain access to Africa. Which settlements are most suitable for developing military harbours? I suspect that - just as only some settlements are capable of having walled defences - so only a few will have harbours deep enough to build the most advanced warships.

It would seem convenient to develop two such military harbours - one on the west coast, the other on the east. Which two settlements should be assigned this duty? I am considering Capua and perhaps Arminium or Tarentum as our two military harbours, but I have not had them surveyed to see if they are physically capable of ultimately fulfilling this role.

[Braden]

Gentlemen of the Senate, during the evening I have taken the time to examine the maps we have in our libraries, and I fear that much of the arguments presented against marching to strike at Pyrrhus immediately have their foundations set firmly in nothing more than quick-sand.

Pyrrhus is within a seasons march of Corfinium or even Paestum, people have spoken of allowing his army to march upon these cities and exhaust his troops on their walls……I say….WHAT WALLS!

Neither city has any defensive structure to protect it, Pyrrhus’s phalanx’s will utterly destroy the valiant defenders with little or no loss and by the time we DO act Pyrrhus, not being a fool , would have erected his own defences around the city!

We must march the two Senate legions South will all haste and confront him before he has the chance to take one of these settlements, or at the very least, before he has another season in which to prepare the defence of a city.

To our North lie the cities of Arretium and Ariminum, it is to OUR advantage that the citizens have yet to erect fortifications, we should raise a third legion from our garrisons and add whatever additional troops we can raise in a season and strike for these Northern settlements. If we have an agent who can infiltrate them, more the better, thus we learn what troops await us. Whatever the matter, we should hold both settlements within three seasons.

So, cease this foolish talk of “waiting for Pyrrhus”, it is even more clear to me now that it is imperative we march with as much force as we can muster and destroy his army in the open field and before he has chance to take a city and consolidate.

I put it to the Senators that it is only Tiberius Coruncanius, that has the purpose of thought to make these bold moves, that has the ability to perform these desperate acts successfully. It is true that this is a more desperate situation than many in the Senate have been fit to see….secure behind the strong and tall walls of Rome, within these cloistered walls of the Senate buildings you have forgotten that the Plebeian on the frontier does not have the luxury of such protection, we are their only hope for protection, Tiberius Coruncanius, is their hope of salvation and for the expansion and security of our Republic in the next 10 years.

Need we discuss this much further? The actions we MUST take are abundantly clear to me, as is which member of the Lower House is capable of performing those actions.

As to the issue of negotiation with the Greeks.

Such talk is folly, why even waste the time of our diplomats by approaching the Greeks with an offer that we already know they will refuse?? Such time is better spent sending diplomatic overtures to other neighbours that we are not in direct conflict with, the Carthaginians perhaps? I know this may not be a popular suggestion but even the stinking Gauls would be a better target for our diplomatic Corp!

I feel that IF we make such an offer to the Greeks we will destroy what little opportunity we have of later building a peace once they have been expelled from our lands, as we will greatly offend their nature. I say we cast them from our shores and allow them to consider the matter as closed for a good time, then we shall approach them, not as aggressors, but as civilised neighbours who have but claimed back what was theirs to start with. The Greeks can remain in their own lands, whilst we will have only taken what is ours by birth. The Greeks will understand our use of force at this time, and welcome us in a few years to come as honoured equals.

Such are my arguments, at this I close my speech and leave it open to the Senate to discuss and ask questions as they see fit.

[econ21]

[QUINTUS]: Senator Braden, your impatience to get at our enemy and your desire to see our borders expand is admirable. But while wrestling in your youth, did not your learn to use your enemy's strength against him?

Yes, Pyrrhus will quickly overrun Corfinium and Paestum. But in so doing he will take losses - the term Pyrrhic victory has not been coined for nothing. More importantly, he will surely divide his army in order to take both prizes. And when he marches on us, as again I agree he will quickly do, he will further deplete his armies due to the requirement to garrison his new conquests. Why, he may even tarry awhile in one of them himself, leaving inexperienced captains to lead the invasion of our lands. His probes will reach Capua, but its walls will hold them for a season. Ancona is further away from him and so we will have sufficient notice if he marches on it. The full Consular army and the Praetorian army I propose to bring against him are protection enough for Latium - you need not be unduly alarmed.

Your valour and concern is admirable, but I urge you - we must not strike hastily. To march south now will compell Pyrrhus to keep his army concentrated and perhaps even reinforce it so that it rivals a Consular army in size. Attacking his army while it is concentrated will cost us dear, though I am sure we will nonetheless prevail. My Fabian strategy of delay and counter-strike will cost us less in Roman blood.

And one final point, good Senator: regrettably some settlements can never be made properly defensible by walls. It is not a function of the size or resources of the settlement, but simple geography. If you consult the Senate library, information has been submitted by our scribes that implies that no settlement currently without defensible walls will ever be capable of building them. Hence, your haste to move before defences are constructed is without foundation.

[Braden]

Senator Quintus, by defensive measures I mean any fortifications….they do not need to be around a city, is it not our own practice to make a fortified enclosure for our armies should they venture into potentially hostile territory?

I have to concede though that I have lent much to conjecture on what Pyrrhus plans. In extreme, it is possible that he will not even march his army further North, but it is clear none in the Senate trust to this possibility.

Likewise, I do not believe that Pyrrhus, being a commander of note, will weaken his army to take two lightly defended cities at the same time. He is a canny commander and it would be foolish of him to weaken his army so close to the boarders of such a mighty foe as the Republic….that would not be the act I would commit, I do not feel Pyrrhus will make such a mistake. Would you err so?

Time.

It is true I ask for haste, but I have no delusion as to the speed we can effectively react. As has been stated before, I believe by your good self, our current Legions are “under strength” and require re-enforcment.

Whilst I do not accept that Pyrrhus will suffer more than a handful of casualties taking the cities to the South, I accept your call for less “haste” in our deployment. However, I urge us to march our two legions South immediately after they are at full compliment. Pyrrhus will either take Corfinium or Paestum but by the time we meet him he will be refused the other by our legions.

With two legions Pyrrhus can be encircled and his retreat cut off, re-enforcements refused passage to him and he will be utterly destroyed.

Pyrrhus will act first in this play of Greek Tragedy but we must move against him before the end of the next season, lest he capture both cities AND have a re-enforced army. Any moves to gain territory in the North can wait until we have a third legion available for this task, such a move also provides homeland security against any bold naval landings as well as potential re-enforcements for our legions attacking Pyrrhus.

Where ever Pyrrhus strikes we must march to meet him before he has time to strike a second time.

A hunter does not wait for the Lion to kill more of his cattle Quintus, he takes up the bow and dagger and marches forth to protect his homestead. Do we forget these are rightful citizens of the Republic? It is true they have lost their way but, like lost cattle, they will return to their stockade once the fears of night approach them.

Senator Quintus, you appear to be willing to allow Pyrrhus the freedom to take those settlements occupied by our kin to the South and await his armies arrival at the very gates of our own Republic…

…I had expected better from one such as you, it is certainly a stance I cannot support.

[Mount Suribachi]

Senator Quintus, your proposal to build a deep port on both coasts of Italia is a sensible one, however I disagree with the choice of Capua. That city has long been the place were we train our troops - why break with that city's proud military tradition. Given the desire of many of our Senators to conquer Italia in as short a time as possible, I'm sure that a suitable port on the west coast can be found soon enough.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

My fellow senators,

I have been unable to attend this college yeasterday due to my military duties. In the meantime I have been critized for lack of detail of my military strategy. Therefore I would ask you to hear me as I will explain them in detail.

What worries me, my lords, is that many of you do not seem to understand how vulnerable our nation is to attack. The city of Ancona, for example, lacks city walls, as do the cities of our rebellious italian cousins. Wild talk of rushing our armies through the peninsula is therefore folly. The moment our troops are out of reach of our frontiers, our enemies would rush into our country and lay waste to our cities. Instead a careful strategy is needed, ensuring we always drive our enemies before us, and that no enemy armies can slip by us and threathen our cities. Even so, there is a real danger of a naval invasion of our homeland while our armies are down south, pressing the enemy toward the sea. Also consider that our walled cities are not safe. The elephants that Pyrrhus has brought can break down our gates without requiring a siege. I beg you to reflect on this, and so consider my strategy more fully.

Due to the grave danger we are in right now, I see no other alternative, than to move all our available military assets down south immediately, leaving a tiny garrison in all our cities. I would merge all our troops in two legions, led by myself Lucius Amelius and senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) and attack Corfinium immediately. We should be able to take this town with insignificant losses. Pyrrhus would not dare attack us right away, as we would have a great numerical advantage and he is no fool.
I would send the senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Capua and the senator Quintus (econ21) to govern Rome itself, as I outlined in my previous speeches. I would send out spy down southeast and our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) down southwest to provide intelligence on Greek army movements. The moment our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) is no longer required down south he would strike out eastward.

The next season my moves would depend greatly on Pyrrhus his movements. If he should ship part of his army back to Greece, I would leave the equivalent of a Praetorian legion just south of Corfinium under the leadership of senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157), to protect the city from a possible suprise Greek attack. Meanwhile the rest of the troops would capture the town of Paestum under my leadership. If Pyrrhus would ship out many of his troops, I would even advise senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to advance immediately south and capture the town of Tarentum. If Pyrrhus would make the mistake of dividing his forces I would suggest senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to attack immediately. Meanwhile my legion would advance along the west capturing Rhegium.
If Pyrrhus does not divide his forces and/or ship them out I would attack immediately with our entire army and crush him. This is a bold move, and contradictory of my earlier plan to make an offer of ceasfire first (if he would give up his colonies), but the debate in this noble house has convinced me it is the best course of action.

Whichever of these scenarios happens, I would have the two legions capture the entire south peninsula, advancing independantly if possible. Whether my advance would stop at Rhegium depends on the strategic situation by then.
Meanwhile, a third legion would be raised and after it was up to strength I would send it out under senator Quintus (econ21) to capture Arretium and Arminium. While this happens I would ask senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Rome or perhaps to accompany senator Quintus, depending on the wishes of these senators and this house.
The rebellious italian cities will be occupied and the greek colonies will be enslaved as recompense for our losses.

Pyrrhus is a fool if he thinks he can keep his foothold in Italy and will be cast out. The Greek people themselves, strangely referred to as barbarians so often in this house, are a civilized people who I would like to see as friends or even allies in the future. Therefore I am quite willing to involve in diplomatic and trade relations with them, providing of course that their presence has been removed from Italian soil.

On the matter of a navy, I agree we need a strong navy, but if we cannot hold our own on land, a navy is a redundant luxury. Therefore I would concentrate on strengthening our land armies before I would start laying down hulls for a war fleet. I surmise that we would be in a position to start work on a navy toward the end of this consulship.

I thank you for your patience, my lords, and I hope that I have answered your questions in sufficient detail.

[Avicenna]

I shall have to enlighten you, master Aemilius. A quote from my scribe:

The Romans called the barbarians BARBARI, nominative plural of the masculine noun and adjective BARBARUS which derives from the ancient Greek word barbaros' originally denoting one who did not speak Greek or pronounced it wrongly, as if he was stammering [bar-bar].

Later on, however, this Greek word "Barbaros" had the meaning of :
-people not fully civilized and then usually believed to be inferior to another people, land or culture.
-foreigner
-cruel, ill-mannered person.

As for the meaning of the Latin term BARBARUS, we need to say that, when this word came into Latin , it had lost the original meaning of stammering person', but retained that of "foreigner", as "not-Greek" or "not-Roman" and therefore 'lacking refinement, learning, artistic or literary culture' 'cruel', 'coarse', 'brutal', 'ill-mannered', 'primitive', 'rough', 'untamed'.

Let us stop talking aobut barbarians now. What do you propose we do if attacked by the Gauls? Or, if Pyrrhus uses his tactical genius, and chooses to march on Rome itself while our armies are concentrated in the south? The swift Greek ships will enable him to launch a lightning campaign in the north of our holdings.

[Dutch_guy]

I find myself torn between the candidates senator Quintus and senator Amelius...

Both I deem worthy of command of my country.

However I do have certain issues with both candidates, whoever can make my doubts of certain issues go away will earn my vote. Now I hope that even though senator Quintus already has 4 votes, he'll still answer to the best of his abilities.

To you, senator Quintus I'd say this, in reply to the latest of your ideas and comments :

It would seem convenient to develop two such military harbours - one on the west coast, the other on the east. Which two settlements should be assigned this duty? I am considering Capua and perhaps Arminium or Tarentum as our two military harbours, but I have not had them surveyed to see if they are physically capable of ultimately fulfilling this role.

I agree that in the long term ships must be built, but I do urge you to delay such issues to when you've defeated Pyhrrus. As building fleets is an arduous task, we must have the time to set it as our top priority. I propose we first have complete control of Italia before we start the building of a fleet.
If that is how you think of this also, then we are in agreement, if not, well then sadly we disagree on this issue. I would like to hear your thoughts on the issues I just raised.


Yes, Pyrrhus will quickly overrun Corfinium and Paestum. But in so doing he will take losses - the term Pyrrhic victory has not been coined for nothing. More importantly, he will surely divide his army in order to take both prizes. And when he marches on us, as again I agree he will quickly do, he will further deplete his armies due to the requirement to garrison his new conquests. Why, he may even tarry awhile in one of them himself, leaving inexperienced captains to lead the invasion of our lands. His probes will reach Capua, but its walls will hold them for a season. Ancona is further away from him and so we will have sufficient notice if he marches on it. The full Consular army and the Praetorian army I propose to bring against him are protection enough for Latium - you need not be unduly alarmed.

While your strategy is a good and sensible one I urge you not to let Pyhrrus or any of his captains get close enough to Capua or Ancona to be able to siege it. I find it horrible enough to know that Pyhrrus might sack Paesium and Corfinium and even worse to know he might be able to destroy Capua or Ancona. I however do know that dividing his army gives us the best chance of destroying him, but what If he doesn't ? What if you let him wander around southern Italia and let re enforcements arrive ? What if Pyhrrus get's the opportunity to siege Corfinium and Paesium at the same time while knowing his army is big enough to withstand a full praetorian army.

My point is that I do sympathize with your divide and conquer tactics, and with your Fabian one of letting him exhaust himself on Corfinium and Paesium. But will it not take a force - which we may not have - to take these cities from the phalangite composed army of Pyhrrus, which is difficult to beat -even for us ROmans - in the city streets.
Will it maybe, just maybe , not be better if we attack him in the field, where we can surround his army and destroy it piece meal ?

To march south now will compel Pyrrhus to keep his army concentrated and perhaps even reinforce it so that it rivals a Consular army in size. Attacking his army while it is concentrated will cost us dear, though I am sure we will nonetheless prevail. My Fabian strategy of delay and counter-strike will cost us less in Roman blood.

I understand - as said before - your point of view on the matter, but I disagree with your latter argument. If it is your desire to, when the time is right, besiege and assault the taken cities of Corfinium and Paesium.
I deem that to be a to costly task, we should try and keep theses cities as some sort of a buffer, if that is possible.

And one final point, good Senator: regrettably some settlements can never be made properly defensible by walls. It is not a function of the size or resources of the settlement, but simple geography. If you consult the Senate library, information has been submitted by our scribes that implies that no settlement currently without defensible walls will ever be capable of building them. Hence, your haste to move before defences are constructed is without foundation.

It seems you have taken the time to sufficiently analyse our current settlements, that is a very good and sensible thing to do. And for that I praise you.
It is however a sad thing to hear that no walls will ever be able to be constructed, how will you defend - garrison - these cities. How will you make them safe ? And keep them that way.

I hope I made my issues with your proposals clear enough, senator Quintus.

Now to you senator Amelius I say the following, concerning your latest comments;

Due to the grave danger we are in right now, I see no other alternative, than to move all our available military assets down south immediately, leaving a tiny garrison in all our cities. I would merge all our troops in two legions, led by myself Lucius Amelius and senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) and attack Corfinium immediately. We should be able to take this town with insignificant losses. Pyrrhus would not dare attack us right away, as we would have a great numerical advantage and he is no fool.
I would send the senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Capua and the senator Quintus (econ21) to govern Rome itself, as I outlined in my previous speeches. I would send out spy down southeast and our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) down southwest to provide intelligence on Greek army movements. The moment our diplomat Sextus Antio (Ignoramus) is no longer required down south he would strike out eastward.

I agree with moving all our troops to the southern part of our noble country, but why attack Corfinium immediately, why not Pyhrrus ?
What if you do manage to take the city but then get besieged and maybe even starved out by Pyhrrus - who is ,as we all know, not a fool and a very capable commander.
I can understand the latter part of your argument, and I can agree with your choices of governors.

The next season my moves would depend greatly on Pyrrhus his movements. If he should ship part of his army back to Greece, I would leave the equivalent of a Praetorian legion just south of Corfinium under the leadership of senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157), to protect the city from a possible surprise Greek attack. Meanwhile the rest of the troops would capture the town of Paestum under my leadership. If Pyrrhus would ship out many of his troops, I would even advise senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to advance immediately south and capture the town of Tarentum. If Pyrrhus would make the mistake of dividing his forces I would suggest senator Publius Laevinius (shifty157) to attack immediately. Meanwhile my legion would advance along the west capturing Rhegium.
If Pyrrhus does not divide his forces and/or ship them out I would attack immediately with our entire army and crush him. This is a bold move, and contradictory of my earlier plan to make an offer of ceasfire first (if he would give up his colonies), but the debate in this noble house has convinced me it is the best course of action.

So you propose to first attack and take Corfinium, and then pose to attack Pyhrrus while he may even be at full strength ? I do not understand this.

Whichever of these scenarios happens, I would have the two legions capture the entire south peninsula, advancing independently if possible. Whether my advance would stop at Rhegium depends on the strategic situation by then.
Meanwhile, a third legion would be raised and after it was up to strength I would send it out under senator Quintus (econ21) to capture Arretium and Arminium. While this happens I would ask senator Amulius Coruncanius (FLYdude) to govern Rome or perhaps to accompany senator Quintus, depending on the wishes of these senators and this house.
The rebellious italian cities will be occupied and the greek colonies will be enslaved as recompense for our losses.



How do you propose to finance the raising of a new third legion, which I do agree with ? What are you planning to do with the epirotes and greeks once Pyhrrus is impaled on a speer ?
And what are you planning on constructing in the newly conquered settlements ( I'd like to know the same thing of senator Quintus

Pyrrhus is a fool if he thinks he can keep his foothold in Italy and will be cast out. The Greek people themselves, strangely referred to as barbarians so often in this house, are a civilized people who I would like to see as friends or even allies in the future. Therefore I am quite willing to involve in diplomatic and trade relations with them, providing of course that their presence has been removed from Italian soil.


Ah it seems that I was to quick to react, thus rendering one of my earlier mentioned questions useless.


On the matter of a navy, I agree we need a strong navy, but if we cannot hold our own on land, a navy is a redundant luxury. Therefore I would concentrate on strengthening our land armies before I would start laying down hulls for a war fleet. I surmise that we would be in a position to start work on a navy toward the end of this consulship.

I agree completely

Well that about sums up my questions to you senator Amelius.

[Braden]

Senator Lucius Amelius, I have to find myself generally in agreement with your proposed plan of action, but doesn’t it mirror very closely that of Tiberius Coruncanius? What do you offer us that Tiberius, whom I sponsor, does not?

Senators of the House, this talk of worry about Pyrrhus outflanking our advancing Legions I think is a dead-end. The topography of the land to the South means that if we advance and liberate Corfinium this season, our Legions will be in a position to cut off any advance further North than this by Pyrrhus on land. The mountains to the South East of Paestum will prevent Pyrrhus moving along our West coast immediately, leaving him only two routes into the Republic – the central route, North of Paestum and South of Corfinium or along the East coast, passing North of Corfinium. If I was a general in Pyrrhus’s place and intended to move into our Republic, it is the East coast route I would pass through. That said, Legions stationed in or near Corfinium can easily intercept Pyrrhus should he choose to approach the Republic by either route. It is at this point that he should be engaged I feel.

If Pyrrhus advances North as our Legions move upon Corfinium, then the Legate in command will know his intent and correct his tactical position accordingly. I do not ask for further detail from the Consulate candidates as NO plan will find completion once Legions march.

All the candidates have put forward their general intent and we, the Senate, are voting on the proposals. It is, also, up to the Senate to consider who amongst those candidates in the Lower House will best perform those tasks we set them.

I see the only worry for us once our Legions move South to harass and engage Pyrrhus is a sea-borne landing from an unknown quarter. However, if we stop to consider and plan for EVERY eventuality no legions will march forth anywhere and we will find Pyrrhus’s elephants breaking down the gates of Rome in three seasons time. To our North, I cannot see the Gauls striking against us for at least a season, time enough for us to muster a Legion for our own protection from garrison troops and recruitment locally, a Legion I would suggest is then used to strike North and expand our borders.

All I ask now, is that Pyrrhus be engaged, in open field with our two current Legions and before he passes Corfinium and directly threatens the Republic herself.

With this statement, I take my leave for the day. It has been a long a trying period in session today and I feel we have accomplished much and garnered a better understanding of the situation at hand. I may return later this eve to find out the results of all our votes.

[econ21]

[QUINTUS]:Senator Dutch_guy, I admire the conscientiousness with which you are approaching your task as an elector of the next First Counsel and will answer your points directly.

I agree that in the long term ships must be built, but I do urge you to delay such issues to when you've defeated Pyhrrus. As building fleets is an arduous task, we must have the time to set it as our top priority. I propose we first have complete control of Italia before we start the building of a fleet.

I apologise if I gave the impression that my priority was to build a navy. I was merely seeking information for the Senate library as to the possible settlements that were capable of such a task - as much for the benefit of other potential First Consuls as for my own plans. It has been reported that the enemy is increasingly willing to consider seaborne landings, so I submit that sufficient naval strength on both sides of the Italian peninsular may be extremely useful in securing our heartlands.

:While your strategy is a good and sensible one I urge you not to let Pyhrrus or any of his captains get close enough to Capua or Ancona to be able to siege it. I find it horrible enough to know that Pyhrrus might sack Paesium and Corfinium and even worse to know he might be able to destroy Capua or Ancona. I however do know that dividing his army gives us the best chance of destroying him, but what If he doesn't ? What if you let him wander around southern Italia and let re enforcements arrive ? What if Pyhrrus get's the opportunity to siege Corfinium and Paesium at the same time while knowing his army is big enough to withstand a full praetorian army.

Presently, my spies report that Pyhrrus's army is merely the size of that of a Praetorian army. I will not let it double in size. If he does not move north, after taking Arretium, I will move my Consular army to engage him. I suspect he will find the appeal of Paesium and Cofrinium irresistible, however. In passing I must remark that I find your sympathy for the inhabitants of those two towns reflects highly on your noble nature. But I must remind you that they have refused our offers of protection and are technically at war with us. Sooner or later, they must submit by force and I would rather Pyrrhus expend his men's lives to disarm then than our own warriors suffer needless losses to that end.

My point is that I do sympathize with your divide and conquer tactics, and with your Fabian one of letting him exhaust himself on Corfinium and Paesium. But will it not take a force - which we may not have - to take these cities from the phalangite composed army of Pyhrrus, which is difficult to beat -even for us ROmans - in the city streets.
Will it maybe, just maybe , not be better if we attack him in the field, where we can surround his army and destroy it piece meal ?

A phalanx in a narrow street is a formiddable opponent, it is true. And I would not strike a large Greek army in a city, preferring instead to starve them out. But I have no fear of a city guarded by a small Greek army. Typically, captains leave but one or two units in the heart of the city and fritter others away attempting to hold an open perimeter. A full consular army has four velites or Italian skirmishers. Have you seen what javelins can do to the rear of a phalanx? Even in a city, we will have the mobility and firepower to tear him apart, like wolves bringing down an elk. Moreover, I remind you - despite widespread misunderstandings - the Greek hoplite does not fight in phalanx like a pikeman. He is but a spearman and is inferior to our princeps in close quarters.

... cities of Corfinium and Paesium. ... we should try and keep theses cities as some sort of a buffer, if that is possible.

As I have said, I will let Pyrrhus have the right of first refusal on these rebellious malcontents. But the richest pickings for immediate expansion lie south and sooner or later, these settlements must submit to our authority, willingly or not.

It is however a sad thing to hear that no walls will ever be able to be constructed, how will you defend - garrison - these cities. How will you make them safe ? And keep them that way.

Without walls, I do not believe a small garrison can secure a settlement against a significant threat. Therefore, we must screen such settlements with armies of at least Praetorian size. I will establish a network of forts between our settlements, close enough that our defensive armies can reach the settlements on hearing of the approach of trouble. A network of spies will scout for any potential incursions, giving our field armies time to approach. In due course, a system of roads in our interior will facilitate this defensive network

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Now to you senator Amelius I say the following, concerning your latest comments;

I agree with moving all our troops to the southern part of our noble country, but why attack Corfinium immediately, why not Pyhrrus ?
What if you do manage to take the city but then get besieged and maybe even starved out by Pyhrrus - who is ,as we all know, not a fool and a very capable commander.

Pyrrhus is indeed a capable commander and thus will not attack a vastly superior force. Instead I suspect he will attempt to strike out to the west and I will hunt his army down, leaving a minimal garrison to occupy Corfinium. I would strike at Pyrrhus immediately, but his army is still far to the south, and the closest our combined forces can march in one season is Corfinium. Should he suicidically assault or siege Corfinium I will sortie from the city and destroy his army.

So you propose to first attack and take Corfinium, and then pose to attack Pyhrrus while he may even be at full strength ? I do not understand this.

You misunderstand me. The Greek confederation is widespread and there are many demands on its troops. It is quite possible that Pyrrhus may decide to transfer a great part of his troops to Greece itself. If he does so, and a praetorian legion still outnumbers his remaining troops comfortably, I will split the army up and strike at Paestum and Pyrrhus simultaneously. If this does not happen, I will attack Pyrrhus with my entire army, leaving a single unit of spearmen as a garrison. In any case, I will not wait, but move on immediately. Pyrrhus' army must be destroyed before it can reinforce itself from the mainland of Greece and pose a deadly threat.

How do you propose to finance the raising of a new third legion, which I do agree with ? And what are you planning on constructing in the newly conquered settlements ?

I have described my domestic plans in detail two days before, but I am quite willing to expand on this subject, as my views have altered slightly.
During the first few years of my consulship, I will concentrate on increasing our financial stability, especially building traders, roads, and safe harbours. The first priority remains building troops, but we have sufficient budget to do both at the same time if we keep building trade buildings. The roads are of course vital from a military perspective as well. The academy, which this senate seems to want to build as much as I do, will have to wait untill the second year of my consulship, as its building is prohibitively expensive (6000 denarii) and we must recruit some military troops immediately. Should victory be ours, and finances permitting, I would like to honour the gods with temples for granting us victory.

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Honorable Senators, pray excuse a brief interjection!

The chief scribe has asked me to remind you that the deadline for voting in the elections for First Consul is in 24 hours time. Last time he checked, some candidates had not even voted for themselves. Honorable Senators, do not be shy!

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Senator Lucius Amelius, I have to find myself generally in agreement with your proposed plan of action, but doesn’t it mirror very closely that of Tiberius Coruncanius? What do you offer us that Tiberius, whom I sponsor, does not?

My dear senator Braden, I have outlined my strategy and it is up to you to decide who to elect as First Consul. Personally, I greatly respect my noble collegae Tiberius Coruncanius, and think he would make an excellent first consul. That said, I believe I would make an even better one.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Let us stop talking aobut barbarians now. What do you propose we do if attacked by the Gauls? Or, if Pyrrhus uses his tactical genius, and chooses to march on Rome itself while our armies are concentrated in the south? The swift Greek ships will enable him to launch a lightning campaign in the north of our holdings.

The Gauls will first take the two rebel cities to our north, giving us ample warning of their advance. In any case, the third legion I will recruit should be quite sufficient to counter them. My whole strategy is focused on taking Pyrrhus out immediately, and making sure no army can slip past us into our heartland. That said, a naval invasion will remain a threat. The third legion will not stray far from Rome just to counter such an eventuality. After the first two years, I recruit a fourth legion which will act as a 'Guards' division and be stationed in a fort just outside Rome. This will allow the third legion to roam further afield, should this be necessary.

[Avicenna]

Senator Aemilius, I very much doubt that Pyrrhus will withdraw his men from Italia. Given his current position, as King of Epirus and Macedonia, he will most likely try to carve out an Empire in Italia. He would not be so foolish to attack the Successors of Alexander, as their armies are too large. No, my friend, we are his targets, and will be until either he has destroyed, or is destroyed.

Also, how do you propose we finish recruitment of the third legion within two years, seeing as it will take half a year to even complete our first two legions? Not to mention incredible strain a fourth legion will put on our economy.

[flyd]

Senator Lucius Amelius,

I must say your plan is quite reasonable, and indeed, very similar to mine. But I must ask, what purpose would Corfinium serve other than to delay our army, if the objective is to destroy Pyrrhus? Why not bypass it at this time, and conquer it later, when Pyrrhus is eliminated?

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

I fully agree with my collegae Tiberius, and thus Pyrrhus and his colonies are my primary target.
The combination of our existing troops almost equals a consular army, and it will be complemented into a correct consular army as we go along. I definitely do not expect to finetune my army while Pyrrhus loots our provinces, but I expect I am misunderstanding my collegae's question. The third legion will be reqruited from Rome and in 8 seasons, it mus be able to put a legion together, while Capua and Ancona support the 1e and 2e legion and provide garrison troops. The fourth legion would be raised when we control both the rebellious cities to the north, the south and the greek colonies. With the taxes we get then, along with the financial structures that will have been build by then, we can easily afford a fourth legion.

And to answer the question of my colegae FLYdude, why not take Corfinium as it is the logical place to gather our armies for the strike at the Greeks ? It blocks our armies easy travel, and I do not believe in leaving an enemy behind me sitting on my supply lines is sound strategy. With the 4:1 numerical advantage we have it should be possible to take Corfinium losing very few men.

[Ignoramus]

You underestimate the Gauls, they would not stop at taking Arretium and Arminium, but would at once besiege Rome.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Senator Antio, with all due respect, I think you overestimate their potential. There is no doubt that they will eventually attack Rome (which is why I suggest that we expand there once Pyrrhus is dealt with), but do you really think they possess the strength to take three cities that quickly?

The Gauls will need time to regroup after they take each city, assuming they defeat the garrisons. And it will take time to even organize such an assault. Don't they have blood feuds to settle in their homelands before they ride for war?

[Ignoramus]

The Gauls have lately been unified; I fear for the safety of our homeland. Do you not remember what happened in 395 B.C?

[shifty157]

The Gauls have lately been unified; I fear for the safety of our homeland. Do you not remember what happened in 395 B.C?

Senator, that was over 100 years ago. I repeat what i have said before. The gauls do not currently have an army with which to attack us. Nor do they have the capability to quickly assemble one. For now we are safe from them.

[Avicenna]

With the number of territories currently possessed by the Gallic confederacy, I doubt that they are incapable of assembling an army at short notice.

[Braden]

Senators, the Gallic question is one that requires addressing that is sure. It would be foolish of us to not consider them a threat; however, at least two of the Consulate candidates have put forward their plans for dealing with this potential threat – the raising of a third legion.

The Gauls live in the fertile plains to our North and whilst they are a warrior culture I believe that this, coupled with the fact that their Nation is still divided, according to the maps I have at hand, means that it is unlikely that they will make the massive military push against us that some Senators believe.

The most I think they will do is to expand South into Ariminum but surely their priority would be to attempt to re-connect their territories by striking West and taking Massilia and Comata. I suspect they do not see us as a threat as yet, they will do when we absorb Ariminum and Arretium into the Republic but at that time we will have our Third Legion and be more than capable of defeating a Gallic army fully twice the size of our Legion.

Senator Tiberius, whilst it will be possible for the Gauls to raise a significant army, they have but three settlements of minor size within a seasons march of Ariminum. Their other settlements are beyond the Alps and cannot directly support those settlements closer to our homes. Even if they manage to raise an army of note and IF they have need to march that army South then I am not unduly concerned, I am very confident that any of the Senators of the lower house will be fully capable of defeating such an army with only one full Legion.

I suggest that the best way to assuage your worries is to vote YES to the raising of a Third Legion and to vote for the best Consul who can lead our, then three, Legions to the security and glory of Rome and the Republic. May I suggest voting for Tiberius Coruncanius, who has the correct mix of Youth, ambition and tactical knowledge to best fulfil such a task.

I am confident though, that whomever the Senate votes to be our Consul, will not “forget” the Gallic question and with support from the Senate will raise a third legion to answer that question.

[Braden]

Gentlemen of the Senate, I formally put a request to the Library for a full list of our current military units. Whilst we are discussing the potential raising of a Third Legion it would be useful to know what forces we have currently in our cities for home defence, and the potential of some of those units going towards the formation of the third legion and it would also be very useful to know what forces we have in our current standing two legions that, I, and many others are proposing to march against Pyrrhus.

[econ21]

SENATE SPEAKER: Senator Braden's request is a reasonable one. The scribes have added the requested information. Note that we may currently train all kinds of Roman and Italian units, with the exception of equites - who would first require a stables to be built in Roma.