Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations II

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I do not see how Legio V's expedition will provoke war with Seleucia, so long as we do not try to hold Nicomedia. There would be no land border with Seleucia.

War with Egypt is likely, but I believe that is due to our existing land border with her, not because of the expedition. Taking and holding Byzantion will not make war any more likely and will strengthen our position should war break out.

Moreover, we are ready for a war with Egypt. We have three field armies able to strike her European possessions and a strong fleet that can guard our coasts after she is expelled from Europe. Indeed, I believe that if war happens quickly with Egypt, it will make the inevitable contest with Iberia go better. We will be able to secure the East, anchoring our Danube frontier at Byzantion, and only have to guard it against a few Thracian raiders.

The last Gallic province is a different matter, because it cannot be reached without transgressing on the land of our neighbour. Furthermore, the news that Iberia is now at war with Gaul makes any discussion of the fate of that settlement in this house irrelevant.

[TinCow]

Yet Macedonia is at war with Ptolemy and Greece is at war with Seleucia and you clearly do not think discussion of their holdings is irrelevant. You make inconsistent choices Aureolus. You do not wish to anger the Iberians, yet you have no qualms about potentially angering the two eastern powers. What have those nations done to so enrage you?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Iberia will finish up the idiotic Gauls, then fix their attention on us. Surely the 506 denarii was only to buy time. I do not want to be caught as far away as Alexandria when we will be fighting in the Alps.

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, I do not wish to transgress the lands of our neighbours - that makes it possible for us to finish off Macedon and Greece, but not Gaul. There is no inconsistency there.

As for letting Seleucia and Egypt defeat our enemies, as of late, they have made little progress there. I believe Greece is taking the offensive against Seleucia in Asia Minor and its city of Byzantion is protected by sea from her enemy. The Macedonian general was able to retreat to Debeltos unmolested through supposedly hostile Egyptian lands. By contrast, I believe a powerful Iberia will make short work of the last pitiful Gallish outpost.

But the key issue to my mind is Byzantion. That is a prized fruit ready for the taking - we should not leave it to fall to Seleucia or Egypt. If the last Gaulish settlement were a great city like Byzantion, rather than some wretched village you have already enslaved and plundered, Senator Verginius, I might think differently.

Moreover, Byzantion has a key strategic location not unlike that of Massilia in the west in days gone past. It is a natural anchor to our Republic. By contrast, the last Gallic settlement could be no more than a stepping stone in a wider contest with Iberia for Gaul.

[Dooz]

{Galerius Vatinius}

Noone is going to Alexandria Marcellus. The aims of taking Byzantion and not moving further into potential enemy territory have been made clear. There is all but one legion tasked with taking it, we won't be caught off guard as long as enough troops stay where they need to. Senator Aureolus makes excellent points as to our border situation and possible conflicts of interest with the Ptolemies and Seleucids, namely that we risk nothing more than we already have by taking Byzantion, and instead have something great to gain with its capture.

[Braden]

I find myself constantly changing my views on this subject of Byzantion. Whilst I agree that such a region will bring the Republic much profit I also believe taking it and holding it will present us in direct opposition to the two powers of the East.

The prospect of War with Seleucia AND Ptolemy feels me with dread at this time, we could not hope to stand against these powers when surrounded.

The issue of Iberia and Gaul is much firmer in my mind. Iberia WILL finish Gaul AND they will also turn against us once they have secured that last Gallic settlement.

The Co-Consuls must ensure we are prepared for this.

IF, it is decided to take Byzantion then the Co-Consuls must be prepared for a huge war! I believe the main issue is that such a war is far from certain…..we could take Byzantion and no provoke either into a response, or we could just provoke one OR both.

If we can be sure we have secured our Eastern boarders on the former Macedonian and Greek City regions then I would be inclined to err on the side of us taking Byzantion and seeing what happens.

The main drawback is that we not only stand to loose which ever Legion ventures forth but have the prospect of our Eastern legions being decimated in a long term struggle.

IF, we are confident that our Legions in the East……..as they are NOW……can resist such a situation, IF, the Senate is happy for us to endanger a whole Legion on such an expedition…..remember we did take such a risk when landing in Illyria as I recall……….THEN, I will support such a venture.

If the Co-Consuls and the Tribunes are not so confident then I am inclined to say “nay” to such a proposal in the Vote.

[TinCow]

Senator Aureolus if you are so sure that Greece will continue to survive and that their dominion over Byzantium will hold, then surely we can take the city from them in two years time when we are properly prepared for a full war. The same stands true of Debeltos. Clearly you believe that Ptolemy and Selucia will not destroy our enemies, so how does a short delay to prepare for a potentially massive war injure us?

Senator Vatinius, we most certainly do risk more. Taking Byzantium will give us a border with Selucia, something we would not otherwise have. Seleucia is in a life-or-death struggle with Ptolemy. Do you really think that they will be glad that we have blocked the main access route to their enemy's holdings in the West?

I am not advocating pacifism by any means. I simply think that we should take advantage of this unprecedented decrease in hostilities to prepare the Republic for the trying times ahead.

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, Legio V is already embarked and about to sail through the Bosphorous. It can destroy the Macedonians at Debeltos, dispose of the settlement and then conquer Byzantion. I do not see what we have to gain from ordering the ships back to port and telling them to wait for the next First Consul (you, perhaps, Senator Verginius?).

We have the manpower to do the job. Legio V can handle itself. Furthermore, our forces are concentrated in what was Macedonia - they are more than sufficient to win a war with Egypt in Europe if she starts one.

Letting the expedition complete its mission would not prevent us preparing ourselves for renewed struggles. Indeed, getting it over with may well free up some of our armies there for duties elsewhere. Furthermore, the income from Byzantion would not go amiss.

[Mount Suribachi]

Augustus Verginius speaks with wisdom. Taking Byzantion gives Ptolomy and Seleucia an isolated Roman city between them. One, or both, of them will be unable to resist attacking it.

And what if Carthage decides to renew hostilities now that Numidia are no more? What if Iberia decides to turn her armies against us. We MUST consolidate, re-group and re-equip. We cannot afford any actions that would cause more wars, as that would undo all the blood and treasure that has been spent to finish the 2 wars that are now drawing to a conclusion.

If we are to take Byzantion, truth be known, I would rather launch a surprise attack on the Ptolomite holdings in Europe and do away with them in one fell swoop. Rather that than wait for them to declare war on us and catch us on the hop.

[Glaucus]

Numerius Aureolus, you have swayed my mind. I agree with you that taking Byzantion is key at this moment. Therefore I second Motions 10.2 and 10.4

I also second Motion 10.5

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Conscript fathers,
It grieves me to see this irrational lust for war in the senate. What has come over you that has afflicted you all with bloodlust ? I sometimes feel like I am surrounded by the beserking Illyrians again, instead of optimates.
Nevertheless, I will say this once more.

The state is not ready for another war !

A massive conflict with Iberia and/or the Ptolemaic empire would be a disaster. Even if our armies in the East will be victorious, which I think they will, they can barely be resupplied from Rome. Any serious defeat could not be replaced in less than a year. The same goes for the West. The Iberians can bring forth massive amounts of troops, which will wither away our armies in Gaul due to sheer attrition no matter how brilliant they fight. It is not for nothing I send those legions all the troops I could spare already !
We do not have the troops to garrision any cities we might conquer. We would be forced to garrison them with very expensive mercenaries, which would be a terrible drain on our finances, and which will stunt our development. The first year and a half it was a struggle to build anything, as our powerful armies had conquered so much territory it was impossible to guard all of it without the heavy use of mercenaries. This made it virtually impossible to construct any large projects. Then the need for new legions stalled the recruitement of auxilia forces to replace the mercenary garrisons. There is virtually no roman or italian soldier in all of Greece, as they are all needed at the border, and we are still short of men ! I find this deplorable. All these cities should be garrisoned by local or italian auxilia troops. The very expensive mercenaries are of better use at our borders.
Furthermore, two legions, the I and the IV are pretty beat up and need reinforcements quickly. Soon we will have three Field Armies and they are now only at legion strength or less.
We also need another legion stationed in Southern Italy, one in Southern Greece, one near Aquileia and one in Macedonia. It takes quite a lot of money and time to recruit and train even a single legion. They don't grow on trees, you know !

When our troops are brought up to strength and when the road network is finished, we might be able to fight a protracted war with one of these powers without undue suffering to our continuing development. Fighting on two fronts will strain us even then. You all seem to forget that the Ptolemaic empire and the Iberians are allies now, if we get involved with a war with one of them we will be at war with both ! We must play for time and rebuild !

This clamoring for war is madness, senators ! Come to your senses !

[flyd]

Of all the nations currently bordering us, Ptolemy is the one we have the least to worry about. Let's not forget that he's in Egypt. They don't have much in Thrace, I reckon we could kick them out in one season if a war started. As far as the threat to us is concerned, Ptolemy cannot be compared to Iberia or the Seleucid Empire. He can, at best, be compared with Carthage, but is even further away, and we haven't seen his fleet perform significant operations in the Aegean.

A war with Ptolemy would not involve a large military campaign. Our war with Carthage didn't involve an invasion of Africa, so why do some apparently assume that we'd suddenly have to invade Egypt if a war with Ptolemy started? In fact, how about we stop being cowards, stop being scared of that bastard in Alexandria, and do what's best for the Republic? I propose:

Motion 10.15: In order to secure the Republic's eastern border, this house instructs the First Consul to completely expel the forces of Ptolemy from Thrace, and to capture Byzantium. This motion authorizes a declaration of war on the Ptolemaic Empire.

[Lucjan]

I second motions..
10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, and 10.12

I will not sit through these nonsense, irresponsible mentions of going to war unprovoked with Iberia, who has just payed us a tiny sum for passage of one of their wargroups through our lands, nor will I support any motion to capture isolated cities far from the Roman heartlands, Byzantion or not, it is an irresponsible, ill thought idea that could only end in further disaster for Rome. If our enemies thought in such ways we could destroy them all in a matter of days, this idea of taking Byzantion is akin to the Gauls suddenly deciding that taking Jenuensis and bypassing Masillia was somehow in their best interests. This was clearly proven incorrect. Just because Byzantion is lucrative, doesn't make invading it intelligent. And as for Debeltos..it's too much of a risk, I have no doubt in Roman ability to actually take Debeltos, but after the recent turn of events between Iberia, Thrace and the Ptolemies, I have no faith in Ptolemaic ability to restrain themselves from attacking an isolated legion. And I will not support outright war with the Ptolemies, doing so would draw Iberia to attack our western frontier before there is any news of Carthaginian entanglement or success with them, and this could mean too large of an Iberian warhorde at our Alpine doorstep. Not only this, but a distracted Ptolemy could give the Seleucids a strong shot at Egypt...and an empire in the east that holds both Egypt AND Babylonia, is not something I think Rome could contend with at this time. The amount of money they would net from these two breadbaskets of the ancient world combined would be far more than we could bear.

As things stand I feel that we have seriously spread the armies of the Republic beyond their limits, and propose a new system to reform the deployment of legions and defensive fortifications to Rome's borders and her enemies territories.

I propose Motion 10.16 - The Republic must re-think it's manner of deployment for Rome's legions and other defensive forces and come up with a suitable plan to better ensure the security of our growing nation's borders.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Senators,

I have send you some engravings to give you a more graphic view of our situation.

The Western Border


The Northern Border


The Eastern Border


The world as we know it


The relative military strength


The number of territories


While these figures might look promising, remember that most of the extra troops we seem to have are actually garrison troops and thus unusable for war. You see that most of these nations can put strong forces on the battlefield. This goes even for the smaller nations, as they have fewer territories to garrison.
The Republic of Carthage, the Seleucid empire and the Ptolemaic empire probably have equal or more troops in the field than we do. The Iberians probably slightly less.

Savegame : http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/258-aut-end.zip