The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations III

[TinCow]

How can I possibly benefit from from the legislation I proposed? What is in it that will have even the remotest effect on my person? I have publicly stated that I will not ever leave the Gallic front and I mean that. I will neither gain nor lose regardless of any action that is taken on this matter. No, I do not speak out for myself, I speak out for the Republic.

You say I only speak up now because it is my legislation that has been voted down? Clearly you do not remember that the second of the two previous issues was just that; the approval of others' legislation over my own. I did not speak up then because they were trivial issues in the grand scope of affairs. If I was truly so interested in my own legislation, as you suggestion, I would have demanded another vote then, as now; but I did not because it is not self-interest that drives me. I speak for the citizens of Rome, Senator Coruncanius, whom do you speak for?

The previous matters which you cite as proof of my complacency were minor issues of little significant to the future of Rome. There are entire orders of magnitude between those incidents and this one. This is a very serious matter that may plunge us into the most devestating wars the world has ever seen. I would be as guilty of criminal neglicence as Publius Laevinus if I held my tongue under such circumstances. If the Republic is to risk war with the most powerful empires in the world, it must do so with the clear consent of the Senate! It makes me sick to think that such a monumentous decision can be made on the basis of a procedural policy that was never voted upon by anyone. I am not afraid of my legislation being defeated. There can be no defeat if the Republic as a whole desires this course of action. I will fully submit and say not a single word more on this, regardless of the outcome, if it is put to a vote.

What reason do you have for denying a vote? Why do you wish to prevent the citizens from making their voices heard? Do you consider war with Selucia and Ptolemy such a minor matter that a single day's delay in its commencement would annoy you?

[flyd]

Let us look at what the Senate voted for, shall we? The text of Motion 10.2 reads:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

This motion passed with a wide margin. This motion is perfectly clear, and there is no way you can deny that the Senate wishes anything other than the conquer Byzantium, based on how they voted on that motion. Motion 10.6 reads:

No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours.

For the most part, Senators who voted for this motion did not vote for the other one, and vice versa. Some Senators voted for both, however. Why do you suppose that is? This motion isn't as clear. Senators may not have been aware of the exact geographical situation. With the extreme clarity of Motion 10.2, how can we come to any conclusion other than that certain Senators thought Byzantium was exempt, for whatever reason, from the provisions of this motion. Titus Vatinius was one of the Senators who voted for both motions, and I quote her.. err, him:

[TITUS VATINIUS]

Errr... Perhaps I didn't study Lucius Aemilius' engravings well enough as I have voted for both motions 10.2 and 10.6 while it was my intention to only approve motion 10.2. My apologies, it is clear that it was not a good moment for me to judge on senate motions after a long night party... emmm... discussing with my priest of Mars.
I shall make sure to be more careful during the next voting rounds.

(On the other hand my vote doesn't seem to make the difference)

You also mentioned Motion 10.8, but I disagree with your reasoning. Motion 9.18 states how wars with Thrace, Illyria, and Macedon should be fought (i.e. with an objective of reaching the Danube). The non-mention of the Greeks by this motion simply means that motion does not at all address the war with the Greeks, not that it prohibits it.

In any case, Motions 10.6 and 10.8 are much less clear in their intent than Motion 10.2. While there is room for variable interpretations of those two motions, there is only one way to interpret Motion 10.2, and this motion has been approved by the Senate. I do not see how it is in any way conceivable that the will of the Senate is anything other than to capture Byzantium.

It is exactly for this reason that I oppose another vote on the issue. Even disregarding all precedent concerning contradictory motions, it is clear that the Senate wants Byzantium. I can only imagine that you would introduce even more complicated and unclear motions at the proposed emergency session. Yet, if we again had the motion with the text:

This house instructs the First Consul to conquer Byzantium.

Is there really any doubt about how the Senate would vote? I don't see any better way to have the Senate decide on the issue of Byzantium. I fear your intent may be to obfuscate the issue, which is why I am against a vote on the exact thing we already voted on.

We could have a vote on precedence rules, but I would be weary of applying them retroactively, so it is best left to the next session.

[Lucjan]

Let the senators who voted to conquer Byzantium join the men they would throw into that snake pit! Let the venom of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid adders seep into their veins as it would the honorable flesh and blood of the Roman soldiers that these senators would send to an isolated hades on Earth. You are condemning these men to certain death.

Now that I have spoken my mind as to the inept thought by those that have voted for motion 10.2, my opinion on the conflicting motions is...

In my eyes, both motions are valid, and both motions stand, however, because motion 10.2 instructs the consul to take Byzantium, but motion 10.6 states that no attacks shall be made on Greek cities that do not border Rome, and both motions were passed, then I do not feel that attacking Byzantion is a direct instruction of the senate until Byzantion borders Rome. For Byzantion to border Rome, we would have to go to war with the Ptolemies, which no motion in this session advised. So, in my mind, the consul is not required to assault Byzantion unless the Greeks expand westward in Ptolemeic land and once again border Rome, in which case we would have an open attack at Greek land leading to Byzantion.

Further more, to my confusion, two of the senators who voted for attacking Byzantion voted against the motion that advised the replenishment of the legions. How is Rome supposed to fight any battles with undermanned legions, let alone take and hold a city that it shares no border with and cannot hope to keep supplied by sea when it's surrounded by two of the world's largest nations?

[Lucjan]

Further more, there is no possible way that the wording of motion 10.6 could cause confusion leading up to the conflict between the two motions. "No attack will be made on a Greek city unless their borders once again become adjacent to ours." Or, in fools terms, as it seems things need to be placed. *Speaks in a mocking voice* "We can't attack them if we can't see their land from ours."

The only confusion here is senators' poor knowledge of Roman borders and the things that lie outside them. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that didn't know a world existed outside Rome at all. To them, the names Carthage, Ptolemy, Seleucid...they probably sound like the names of master toga weavers! If only I were so foolish that I could spend 1,000 denarii on a toga and ignore the pain of Roman citizens, I might be like many others in this senate.

[Mount Suribachi]

Conscript Fathers, if I may interrupt here. When I first saw that the both of the motions in question had passed, I must confess my heart lept! Now I had a way of not attacking Byzantion, an act that you all know I have been greatly opposed to.

Unfortunately, I had forgotten the rules and the precedent regarding contradicting motions. Much as I do not like it in this case, I must bow to the voting rules of this august house. Augustus Verginius, you have spoken passionately against this result, but in the past you have spoken equally passionately about the need for order - how it is our laws and rules that separate us from the barbarians. I urge you know to remember what you have said in the past and swallow your pride. I agree with what you and my co-consul say about the madness of this proposed expidition, but that does not mean I shall not ignore the laws of this house.

So with a heavy - nay, solemn heart I accept that Byzantion must be conquered. But hear this Conscript Fathers, hear this! My consulship has 10 more seasons to run, do not expect this great walled city to be taken afore the year is out! As I have told you my astrologers and augers have predicted war with Ptolomy shortly. Numerius Aureolus has dreamed of an equally dire future. I predict this debate shall all be academic soon anyway.

And if it is not, Servius Aemilius speaks words of wisdom. Let those who would seek to enact such foolish actions risk their lives to do it.

[Braden]

Senators,

I must apologise for being absent from the last Senate Vote, this was due to my studies who have reached their final stages before I can leave my education and join the Republic in service.

I fear the same issue will occur (OOC: Depending on how fast the game is played) for the next voting session but I hope it will not.

I apologise mainly because my vote could have stopped this internal feud and the bickering about procedure.

However, I will publicly announce now, that I would have supported motion 10.2, perhaps we will have had the same heated debate even if motion 10.6 was clearly not voted through? The reasons for support in both is understandable.

[TinCow]

Senator Publius Pansa speaks the truth and I will not turn to the plebs for action or any other such illegal act, even if it would aid the Republic. Yet, I would like to take a moment to clarify to all exactly what madness has been enacted here.

First, Debeltos is to be taken and then immediately gifted to Ptolemy. Second, Byzantion is to be taken and held and neither Nicomedia nor any other Greek city is to be attacked. While all of Greece's current attention is diverted to the east in their war with Seleucia, it will surely turn back against us as soon as we take Byzantium. While they certainly cannot threaten us, this removes a limiting force on one of the two great eastern empires. In Macedonia, we shall remove the only enemy of Ptolemy in Europe, leaving his armies in the area idle. We shall then surround ourselves with warring empires and block the most significant access point by which they can fight. One, most likely both, will attack us and we will be forced to hold the city while in some 'desperate' and dramatic fashion while relief armies move east to relieve it. Perhaps the relief will arrive just in time, to find Numerius Aureolus alone in the city claiming that the rest of the legion fought to its death and that it was only the prompt arrival of allies that scared the enemy away!

Regardless, this will mean war with either or both of the eastern empires, one which will surely not cease in any of our lifetimes. We will permanently lose trade access to all eastern ports, revenue will drop, and thousands of citizens will be killed in battles. For what, I ask you? For the vanity of a few men who will profit at the expense of the Republic.

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Verginius, with all respect, I fear you misunderstand the situation. If Egypt does turn hostile (as I expect), they will indeed surround Debeltos. But they will not attack the city of Debeltos. Rather, we will march from Debeltos to attack them. In one season, Legio V could take Tylis and the pro-Consul's army could take Maronia. This would expell the Egyptians from Europe.

Such a swift response to Egyptian aggression would also lead to our territory becoming adjacent to Byzantion. Hence Motion 10.6 would not apply. Neutral Egypt going to war with us would also negate Motion 10.8. So let us not argue over hypothetical contradictions. The pro-Consul has indicated he will not act precipitously in the matter of Byzantion. Let us take one step at a time and respond to events on the ground.

Mention of the Co-Consul leads me to respond his accusation in his First Consul's Report that I was insurbordinate for refusing to exterminate Debeltos. Co-Consul, I sincerely apologise for any slight given, it was not intended. But the stipulation that no city (except Carthage) may be exterminated is the second rule in our constitution. It can only be over-riden by a Senate motion. Co-Consul, for the good of the Republic, the two of us must co-operate closely on the field of battle in the coming seasons. Let us not fall out over simple adherence to the rules.

I would also like to humbly remind the Consuls that our ships can only practically carry one unit of soldiers each. The trip to Debeltos was so over-crowded, I swear, the Bastarnae and Samartians had to swim alongside us through the Bosphorus. I would also remind them that it is possible to retrain ship crews to bring them back up to strength. The last ship in the fleet had only a captain as its crew. Although he was rather a dour fellow, I feel he could use some company - especially in the event of a sea battle.