Ioannis once again enters the Senate and starts in a quiet voice
If it was not obvious, the letter the Grandmaster presented was sent to myself. If anyone would like to question its origin, do so now.
His expression becomes weary
Presenting it here is a breach of trust to Caesar Ioannis, and for that I am sorry. The letter was obviously in confidence. Ioannis is my brother and I love him. But I fear he has become misguided.
Perhaps there were better ways of dealing with the situation. To be perfectly honest, I was shocked by the proposal. Shocked for several reasons.
First, because the Caesar is promulgating Civil War. This ought to be obvious enough.
Second, because the Caesar is asking me to make assurances and deals over settlements that I have no personal control over, but which are owned by my vassals. The assumption that I could deal with them as I pleases annoyed me.
Thirdly, because the Caesar included settlements belonging to Senators not aligned with the natural opponents in any civil war.
Lastly, because of the far-reaching, and quite frankly extortionate powers promulgated in the last point.
Perhaps, in my shock, my action will be viewed as rash with hindsight. Perhaps it will cost me and mine dearly. But I have always respected the power of this august body, and I could not stand by without the Senate having seen this.
I have made my opinions on the Empire very clear during the last election. I strongly believe in them, and I am certain they are the way forward.
The Caesar's proposal went against everything I stated in those opinions. I suppose, in that way, my reaction should come as no surprise.
My allegiance remains to the Basileos, who as far as I am aware had no knowledge of this, and to the Empire.
Two more things must be said.
The first concerns Pavlos Chrysovergos' reply. Pavlos was the other recipient of this letter, the only other recipient I know of.
His reply was passed on to me by the Caesar as "favourable". However, this is inaccurate. Pavlos stated his opposition to civil war. While acknowledging his dislike of the Order, and the rewards a war against them might bring, he remained opposed to that idea. The only favourable response he gave was that he agreed that cooperation in voting power between the Komnenodouaki and Asteri and the Basileos was important and a "pillar of power in the years to come." He concluded with saying that while he would join in this power, anything further was beyond consideration at the moment.
I therefore form the opinion that this is not an favourable agreement, that Pavlos gave no clear intention to join in this scheme and that the only thing we should hold against him is that he did not disclose the scheme, which can be forgiven, I think, considering the Caesar is his Lord.
The second then, obviously concerns the Caesar.
To be perfectly frank I do not know what should be done.
The judicial powers of this Senate have been sorely lacking in the past. I was up to me to punish Hypatios, rule-breaking went unheeded and it seems unlikely Methodios will answer for Alexandria. I hate to say it, but somebody must, as a court of law we have failed miserably.
There are then, two options. Either we, as the Senate, come to our collective senses and decide together what is best as a reaction. It is time this body futhfill its function as a court, and what better case to start us off than this. If it is necessary, I will call an Emergency Senate Session to make this happen.
The other is that we ask the Basileos, who has proved somewhat reluctant in the past, if I may say so, or make our own individual judgments which will result in nothing but ridiculous outcomes.
It should be obvious which I prefer.
Bookmarks