Imperial Diet III

**gibsonsg91921** · 06-09-2007, 16:41

I will show respect to Catholicism, but ne'er to the corrupt old man that sits around telling his subjects what to do. Ehrhart von Mahren was a brother to me, and to give up his most noble, ultimate sacrifice for "diplomatic gain" is to flout his memory. He is a hero of the Empire and rests in the annals of the Reich with Count der Stoltze, Kaiser Heinrich, Duke von Saxony, Count Mandorf, Duke Leopold and King Otto. We must always honor the memory of the young Count von Mahren and his feats at the gates of Durazzo!

**FactionHeir** · 06-09-2007, 16:43

Well, then tell me. Did von Mahren die just to take Durazzo or did he die in service of the greater glory of the empire?

**gibsonsg91921** · 06-09-2007, 17:23

He died in service of the Reich, a glorious death in battle it was. And I ask you, Chancellor Hans, is it the custom of the Reich to throw away its young nobles, friends, and sons piecemeal for the "good" of the Reich? Not only did young Ehrhart die, but hundreds of forgotten soldiers. They died for the Reich, to secure its influence in the Balkans. How can you say that his death brought the Empire glory, when you wantonly trade away his life for "diplomatic concession."

**FactionHeir** · 06-09-2007, 17:29

Would you say that increasing the empire's security is not increasing its glory likewise? Would you consider an abandoned Durazzo, up for pickings to the Venetians instead honoring our dead? I tell you, if the Venetians had retaken the city instead of us giving it away to the papacy, that would have shamed the empire and our fallen. Giving it to the papacy, on the other hand, only brings the empire more security and creates a barrier through which the Venetians cannot pass.

So tell me, would you rather me let the city rot as was commanded and abandon it, gift it to the papacy, or give it to the papacy in exchange for their goodwill, security, AND the promise to tend to the graves of our dead?

**gibsonsg91921** · 06-09-2007, 17:34

I would that Durazzo be fortified and held as our bulwark to the south, not waste it on some tyrant who sits delightfully on his throne in Jerusalem drinking his golden cup of Jee. It was a triumph of the Reich to deprive it from the Venetians, our mortal foes, and giving it away for "security" is foolish.

Kaiser Henry approved this, you say? Perhaps the House of Swabia in general is plagued. Do not forget it is the incursions of the SHA upon the God-fearing French's soil that lowers our reputation in the eyes of the Most Holy and Untouchable Despot.

**FactionHeir** · 06-09-2007, 17:37

Not only did the Emperor but also the Austrian Duke approve it. Would the Duke of Austria not wish the best for his own house, considering Durazzo would have been assigned to it?
And since you were not present at Durazzo when I surveyed it, it was greatly dilapidated and unable to produce any troops for a long while after its populace was massacred. It would not have been a bulwark but a liability to hold it.

**gibsonsg91921** · 06-09-2007, 17:42

I will remember these insults, Hans. Tell me this. Was it part of your supposed "master plan" from the start to take Durazzo and spend Imperial lives only to give it away again? I tell you, it is folly. Folly to waste our young men's lives and folly to bow to an unholy master.