The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations III

[Dutch_guy]

I am not in favor of Constitutional Amendment 11.A, it seems fine as it is.

I am, on the other hand, in agreement concerning the other motions. Especially motion 11.8 - this seems very wise, especially seeing War with Iberia is only moments away.

Motion 11.8 : We will not extend our borders in Europe during this consul's term, except for Maronia

I however, do not quite understand why we should return Viberi to our allies. If a war might break out between our German ''Allies'' we'd have to re conquer the settlement and lose countless lives doing so. I just don't see what we have to gain by such an action.

Motion 11.9 : We will try to return Viberi to our allies, the Germans, during this consul's term.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

I however, do not quite understand why we should return Viberi to our allies.

As long as the Germans are at war with Iberia, Iberia might not attack us. However, the Germans are losing and need to be strengthened to be able to continue this war.
Realizing I made an error, I am rephrasing
Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans. We will not attack an Iberian-held town while we are not at war with them (Vicus Goth is held by Iberia).

[Dutch_guy]

As long as the Germans are at war with Iberia, Iberia might not attack us. However, the Germans are losing and need to be strengthened to be able to continue this war.
Realizing I made an error, I am rephrasing
Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans. We will not attack an Iberian-held town while we are not at war with them (Vicus Goth is held by Iberia).

Well as noble as your intentions may be, I don't think that giving them a razed* city would actually help them hold out against the Iberian onslaught. So keeping that in mind, I do quite understand why the Germans may not wish the extra burden of an extra city. Of course the most noble thing to do is aid them in their war, but seeing our current state of diplomacy with the known world that may not be the best thing to do at the moment.

*

I planned to give the town [Viberi] to our allies, the Germans, but they do not want it. Annoyed, I plunder everything except the market

[Mount Suribachi]

Motion #11.00:

The Senate authorises the seaborne invasion of North Afrika with at least two Consular sized armies.

I believe Senate authorisation is not required for this operation - we are already at war with Carthage, the Consul may do as he pleases in this regard, unless the Senate specifically tells him otherwise.

Motion #11.02:

The Senate authorises the positioning of a Legion or other assembled force to “face off” against the Iberian incursion – this is not authorisation to initiate hostile activity but to show Iberia how seriously we take such unwarranted actions and allow them the chance to withdraw with honour to their own lands.

I believe there are already 2 legion sized forces in our Gallic provinces.


Regarding Viberi and the other Thracian provinces, I have this to say. It was agreed some time ago to use the Danube as a natural border - a wise and sound strategy. However, our enemy the Thracians remain unconquered and are unlikely to ever agree to a ceasefire. The only way we shall have peace on our northern border is by eliminating the Thracians altogether. This shall have 3 benefits, all positive.

1) It removes one of our many enemies, and frees us from fighting endless stacks of Thracians season after season. We may defeat them 95% of the time, but each battle will wear down our armies and we are not in a position to win a war of attrition.

2) Our northern border is now protected by an ALLY!! Oh praise the Gods and give thanks to consul Lucius Aemilius for negotiating an alliance with Germania. And having an ally bordering us is an enormous advantage for one simple reason - Trade!! We need every denarii we can get, and our merchants will be able to freely ply their wares with the Germans once we have eliminated Thrace.

3) It frees up our troops. Currently we have several legions worth of troops along the Danube, guarding against Thracian incursions. If it was Germania directly to our north (who I believe we have a military access agreement with), then we could leave the river crossings unguarded and leave just one legion there as a reserve. The legions released could then be sent east, west or south at the Consuls discretion.

Finally, your point about having to reconquer any cities we give to the Germans is misguided. I hope we never go to war with those fearsome barbarians, but maybe we will, if they are foolish enough to attack us at some time in the future. We must plan for the here and now. We need every piece of coin, every soldier, every ally we can right now. Our situation is desperate. Let us take advantage of our ally whilst we can. Furthermore, those towns are small and poorly developed. It will take decades before they are cities of any worth. Let us worry about having to retake cities we have gifted to Germania, if and when it comes to that.

With all this in mind I ask that Lucius Aemilius re-word & merge Motions 11.9 and 11.12 to read

Motion 11.9 - The Germanic legion under Quintus Libo shall conquer and enslave the remaining Thracian settlements of Viberi, Vicus Marcomannii, Campus Lazyges and Sarmisegetusa. These shall then be offered individually, or in a package to our allies the Germans. The consul is authorised to offer financial sweeteners to Germania to induce them to accept


Finally, I wish to second Motions 11.1, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.10

OOC: can we discuss the difficulty levels in the OOC thread?

[flyd]

I second Motions 11.5 and 11.6. The others I will have to give more thought.

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I must start by expressing my respect and gratitude to the First Consul. He, and his Co-Consuls, have led us in an exemplary fashion throughout the last five difficult years. I fear he is far too reserved about his achievements - to have conquered 18 settlements surely rivals anything done by his predecessors.

All that said, however, I find I am almost completely in disagreement with the motions he proposes to constrain and direct his successor. My basic stance is for minimal legislation - to leave the First Consuls free to respond to events and to make the hard decisions, based on careful thought and study, that are often not best made by the Senate at a distance and only in 2 and a half year intervals. My instinct, therefore, is to vote "No!" to all motions unless they are utterly necessary and self-evident (such as giving chirurgeons to front line armies, ** cough **).

Now on the substance of the motions available so far. Many appear unnecessary and others self-evidently wrong. Perhaps the most egregious is motion 11.5 calling for a sea blockade of the Bosphorus and making illegal any move across the straits. Senators, we have no evidence that a sea blockade would prevent the Seleucids crossing the straits - in fact, we have direct experience that it does not. Furthermore, it seems curious that the First Consul should seek to make illegal raids that he conducted in the last two seasons in office that secured the Republic nearly 20,000 gold and 10,000 slaves, at minimal cost in Roman blood. It is also strange that the First Consul praises the brilliance of ex-First Consul's great raid through a Gaul but seeks to prohibit a similar potential exercise through Seleucid held Asia Minor.

Senators, I do not propose that we push into Asia in a major offensive at this time. I agree that Carthage is a more tempting target - it is weaker and its lands, more self-contained so it would require less of a garrison. However, the First Consul is surely wrong to say that we can never defeat Seleucia and Egypt. It will not be easy and it is not the task for the next First Consul, but it is our destiny. And if we take settlements at the rate the First Consul has done, I suspect it will be accomplished within my life time. But that is the long term. In the short term, Seleucia will surely keep attacking us without respite and indefinitely until she is destroyed. Anything we can to weaken her - whether it is raids, pursuits across the straits, etc - should not be ruled out of hand. We would be forcing ourselves to fight with one hand behind our backs.

On motion 11.6, I confess I can see no point in an expedition to Rhodes. Surely Melite has taught us that it is hard to defend small islands? Indeed, the First Consul appears to have abandoned Melite - the Consular army aimed at Lepcis Magna could have liberated it en route - and was unwilling to even try to defend Sardinia. If Rhodes is to be raided, that is another matter but a distinctly low priority one in view of the strength of Seleucid armies around Maronia and beyond.

Motion 11.8, foreswearing further conquests in Europe appears too restrictive. What if Iberia attacks us? Should we just stand passive? The First Consul himself was certainly not passive with Greece, Macedon, Thrace and Egypt. At least put in a clause negating the motion in such an event. Are we not to take Anchlaus and close the last hole in our Danube frontier?

Motion 11.12, taking further Thracian cities and surrendering them to Germany, appears folly. Senators, I have been personally blamed for the wars with Seleucia and Egypt. I have laid before you an alternative hypothesis to explain these wars: whoever we share a land border with, will ultimately attack us. So it was with Thrace, Illyria, Macedon, Egypt and Seleucia. The only exception so far is Iberia, which we have only relatively recently bordered. Perhaps she has held off because our garrisons in the border provinces have been strong, I do not know. But if I am right, the corollary of my hypothesis is this: that, where possible, land borders with neutral powers should be avoided. It is for this reason, I have been quietly sceptical of the Viberi expediton, which will likely give us a land border with the Germans, and why I believe we should not take the last Thracian settlements in order to avoid contact with the Sarmatians. Where we wish to avoid war with powers such as Germany and Sarmatia, I believe it would be better to leave a weakened Thrace as a buffer state - much as we left two Gallic settlements between us and Iberia for so long.

I would also like to speak briefly about motion 11.4 - holding Byzantium at at all costs. I fear the motion currently seems little more than posturing. I believe serious thought should be given as to how we can best defend the straits. On the Maronia end, I believe at least a full Consular army will be required. The Seleucids are capable of sending multiple Consular-sized armies across the straits and a Praetorian army would be overwhelmed. Byzantion, unlike Maronia, has walls so has a season's grace. However, I do not believe walls provide any further advantage against the Seleucids, given that their fearsome hypaspists would likely be able to seize walls guarded even by Roman heavy infantry. Personally, I would prefer to meet the Seleucids at Byzantion in the field, where we will have more freedom to outmanouvre them, exhaust them and use our cavalry. But given the size of the Seleucid armies and the poor communications between Maronia and Byzantion, this could well require a second Consular sized army.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Conscript fathers,

I am gratified by the praise of Numerius Auriolus, however my goal was internal development, not conquest. I would have been a lot more pleased if we had not conquered Eastern Greece, and I have only realised half of what I wanted to accomplish economically. It is nice to have a great nation, but it would be a lot nicer if the cities in it were not rebellious low tax plague pits.

Concerning motion 11.5, I still think a naval blockade is possible. I think the fleets should just be a certain size, i.e. 3 ships seems to work. Due to the width of the land bridges at least 5 fleets will be needed, three for Maronia and two for Byzantium. Why else is there a 'no travel' zone around the fleet of three ships near Maronia ?

Concerning motion 11.6, taking Rhodes will probably add 50% to our revenue due to the Colossus wonder. Considering our current disastrous financial situation, this seems like a smart thing to do.

Concerning motion 11.8, we are already very overstretched and cannot guard what we have. Conquering even more land will make this problem even worse. Still, a looting and raiding campaign I have no problems with (OOC : But what about the rebellion problems ?)

OOC : Concerning motion 11.12, we would not have the problem of guaranteed war with our neighbours described by econ21 on a lower campaign difficulty.

EDIT : As Augustus Verginius has declined to run for consul, we have no candidates as of yet. I call on all senators who are willing to run for consul to do so. I will be away during this debate, so if anyone wants to run, but does not care for one of my motions, that motion can be considered withdrawn. Note that you can run for 2.5 years or 5 years, and can run alone or together.

EDIT : I have decided to change my consular amendment proposal :
Constitutional Amendment 11.A : We will organize a poll on changing the difficulty settings of the game to M/VH, M/H. M/M, H/VH, H/H or H/M. The one with the most votes, not 2/3 majority, or even a majority, will become the new setting. Only lower house senate member votes on the poll are valid and influence is not a factor in this poll. This amendment itself does require a 2/3 majority of senate votes to pass.

EDIT : I've verified a naval blockade is not possible. I must have been confused with EU II (now that's a game with good diplomacy AI). Accordingly, I am retracting Motion 11.5.

EDIT : Motion 11.9 is retracted, as when Viberi rebels it becomes a rebel town and that will provide a better protection for us than if the Germans get it.

[Braden]

Senator Marcellus Aemilius,

I have re-worded my motions BUT I point out to you that the wording for Motion #11.01 states:

“……targets of Carthago and Hadrumentum as a minimum…..”

As such it does NOT insist that both are held but rather that both are assaulted. Should it seem tactically impossible to assault and hold both, the Consul is free to order you to withdraw to any position you deem most defensible. Indeed, I have previously stated that Carthago should be sacked and only Hadrumentum held.

Senator Valerius Paullus,

My wording of Motion #11.00 has been amended but its focal point is to insist that TWO Consular armies are use.

As for Motion #11.02; we do indeed have armies stationed there. This motion is merely to ensure that they are placed in such a way as to “shepherd” the Iberian force out of our lands.

On motion #11.06 – I agree that an expedition to Rhodes will be folly. The town there is woefully underdeveloped and any force we send will be even MORE isolated than if it was in Byzantion and surrounded by Selucids! I cannot support it.

On my motion #11.04 – I confess, this is purely a personal issue. However, I believed it to have been one that you, Numerius Aureolus, would understand. Long did you lobby for the taking of that city and now….when things appear to dangerous…..you present us with doom and gloom and seemingly preparations for your withdrawal from the city?

Motion #11.04 stands as submitted but Senators, it is MY wish that Byzantion be held at all costs….it may not be yours. If not then do not support it.

(OOC: any ooc amendments I will discuss in the OOC thread).

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Forgive me, I was certainly not arguing for withdrawal from Byzantion. I was merely pondering outloud how best it is to be defended. Merely garrisoning the city and awaiting a siege does not seem the best tactic. On further reflection, I propose the following motion:

Motion 11.13: This Senate recognises that the Seleucia will relentlessly attack the Republic with large armies and the best places to hold them off are at Maronia and Byzantion. However, it notes that the distance between these two settlements makes it impractical to defend them with just one army and so instructs the First Consul to work towards guarding them each with a Consular sized armies, each with a chirurgeon.

Senators, it seems we are in agreement that now is not the time to move further east. We may wish to take Rhodes (in the light of the First Consul's information, I second to that proposal); we may wish to conduct some opportunistic raides. But we currently intend to adopt a largely defensive stance in the east.

However, in taking this defensive stance, we need to be aware that Seleucia will use the landbridges to attack us unremittingly and we must give careful thought to the forces required to repell such repeated attacks over the next five years.

Currently we have two armies near the straits. Praetor Coruncanius's Field Army I and Legio V. Neither are Consular strength and while each may be able to defeat a Consular sized Seleucid army, I believe they would be quickly worn down by two or three such encounters. To avoid the risk of a repetition of the battles that led to the deaths of two of our Co-Consuls - and to minimise unncessary battlefield losses - I believe that both Maronia and Byzantion need to be guarded by Consular-sized armies.

Senators must note that the two settlements are too far to travel between in a single season and if a Consular sized army marches from Maronia to relieve a besieged Byzantion, it will leave open Maronia for attack. Moreover, it would be reckless to depend on Byzantion repelling an assault on its walls. One only has to read the account of my battle at Ratiaria to see what hypaspists are capable of doing to Roman infantry in confined spaces, and to see why I would prefer to meet them in the open, when they can be more easily flanked by cavalry:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=34

Some Senators may wonder at the cost of two Consular armies, but this is a foolish distraction. We must stop Seleucia and if we do not do it properly, we will have to waste a lot of gold on emergency recruitment of mercenaries, the sacrifice of settlements and heavy attrition of smaller armies rushed to the scene. Our two armies near the straits are already at the size of one and a half Consular armies - all that will be required is a Praetorian sized reinforcement of a core of good Roman infantry.

On another matter, I would also like to request that the second Consular army heading for Africa first liberate Melite and drive the Carthaginians from Sardinia. Roman honour demands it.

Motion 11.14: This house requires the expulsion of Carthaginian armies from Sardinia and Melite, prior to landing a second Consular army in Africa.

[OOC: there is some weird buggy AI behaviour - the Carthaginians have sat on the beaches in Melite and Sardinia for many many turns doing nothing. Its unrealistic and not good for the roleplaying size of the campaign - confronting them removes this eyesore.]

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Regarding Viberi and the other Thracian provinces, I have this to say. It was agreed some time ago to use the Danube as a natural border - a wise and sound strategy. However, our enemy the Thracians remain unconquered and are unlikely to ever agree to a ceasefire. The only way we shall have peace on our northern border is by eliminating the Thracians altogether.
[snip]
With all this in mind I ask that Lucius Aemilius re-word & merge Motions 11.9 and 11.12 to read
Motion 11.9 - The Germanic legion under Quintus Libo shall conquer and enslave the remaining Thracian settlements of Viberi, Vicus Marcomannii, Campus Lazyges and Sarmisegetusa. These shall then be offered individually, or in a package to our allies the Germans. The consul is authorised to offer financial sweeteners to Germania to induce them to accept

These are all valid reasons, but I prefer to make Germania stronger in the direction of Iberia, instead of in our direction. I do not want to tempt our allies into attacking us. An alternative might be conquering Thrace for ourselves, but I rather have Thrace for a neighbour behind an easily defended border, than the Sarmatians, with their fearsome horse armies. Therefore I will not alter my motion. You are of course free to propose a motion yourself.

[Glaucus]

I second motions 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.4. 11.5, 11.6, 11.9, 11.11, 11.12

In regards to motion 11.7, I do not think our treasury can afford citizenship buildings in those settlements at this time. I would like to grant them this gift, but for now it should be put on hold.

I second Ammendment 11.B