Res Publica: A Quest of Ancient Rome
- Thread starter Telamon
- Start date
- Original Historic
maximillian
Civilised Sheep
- Location
- Ranch
[X] Plan Celeritas et Clementia
To set those who once waged war upon you free is the greatest humiliation and show of strength possible, for it proclaims that you do not consider them a threat, for the great fear not the meagre multitudes.
It also encourages others to turn thier spears now that victory, slavery or death are not the sole options.
To set those who once waged war upon you free is the greatest humiliation and show of strength possible, for it proclaims that you do not consider them a threat, for the great fear not the meagre multitudes.
It also encourages others to turn thier spears now that victory, slavery or death are not the sole options.
Last edited:
- Location
- Budget Quota Hell
[X] Plan Moving Forward
I truly don't believe we would be slowed down significantly by taking along the wounded with us. A typical Legion should be able to carry its wounded along its baggage train (impedimenta, I believe?) As well as have doctors on hand to treat them. In other words, this shouldn't really affect our mobility as Marian Legions in this point of time should already have the tools on hand to fix them as we move.
I truly don't believe we would be slowed down significantly by taking along the wounded with us. A typical Legion should be able to carry its wounded along its baggage train (impedimenta, I believe?) As well as have doctors on hand to treat them. In other words, this shouldn't really affect our mobility as Marian Legions in this point of time should already have the tools on hand to fix them as we move.
- Location
- Hawaii
[X] Plan Celeritas et Clementia
- Location
- nz
[X] Plan Moving Forward
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The flip side of this is, the Romans were also pretty good at building reasonably comfortable, sanitary hospital facilities. I don't know exactly what the hospital/infirmary at our camp looks like, but it'd be a better place to care for wounded soldiers than a wagon in the baggage train. Especially after a battle in which we've taken heavy casualties across the entire force.
- Location
- Canada
[X] Plan Moving Forward
- Location
- At your local SPCA
[X] Plan Moving Forward
xa na xa
A.E.I.O.U. - Antarticae est imperare orbi universo
- Location
- σ Octantis
I concur with you, though more in the sense that trying to micromanage with very precise and detailed orders doesn't quite feel right to me. Atellus's main duty (in my opinion) is deciding the broad stroke of policy: kill the captives, grant mercy, make joining Sertorius his priority, protect the towns, etc. It's not that managing the little things isn't part of his job description or important, but trying to include every little contingency right now seems cumbersome. They will figure out the best way to implement the objective.
EDIT: I originally set out with a slightly different vibe in mind, but what I ended up writing gives me something very similar to what you said. Just basically agreement, then
What are even "frag orders" and "auftragstaktik"!
The difficulty of a write-in is in coming up with a genuine alternative e) , when you have a) b) c) d). It's easy to write subvariants a1), a2) which are only a way of doing more or less the same thing, just in a different manner, order, emphasis or what have you. They can be positive changes, they can be worse, or they can neutral and amount to the same thing.
For example, in this vote Plan Clementia&Celeritas is a variant of the the following standard options:
[] Turn and march immediately for Nola, in order to reinforce Sertorius and the Hirpini in the siege.
[] Free them, and order them to return to their homes and farms. With Gemino gone, they are no longer a threat.
It's "free them, but with such and such conditions" and "move to Nola, but in this and that way". So was plan H&M&LP, which was "Move to Nola but pacify the western towns a bit" and "free them, but with such and such conditions" .
It's very dependant in case by case whether those kind of changes are an improvement or not. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Compromise write-ins combine a) and c) or b) or d) or even three or more options. Sometimes they are good blend that create synergies, but quite often they are an attempt by the writer tries to have it both ways, or get a heads I win tails you loose effect.
Both plans rightly identify commander's intent as moving as many troops to Nola as fast as possible.
"Next Moves" is the primary concern, and "Captured enemies" is the secondary concern.
I'm sceptical to some of the changes that the C&C subvariants make. The shuffling around is bad for unit cohesion and esprit de corps, and as has been noted a NCO concern, not one for the Commanding General. The branding may backfire, creating resentment, or even becoming a badge of honour among rebels.
The problem with Move Forward is the slavery. It is the worst option of the four by far and away; I refer to the several posts I've made in the thread earlier in the vote explaining why (also some more in this post, see below)
(My preference would be killing them. It's the human, honourable, quick, simple, practical, and least painful (save for freeing them) choice. Freeing them is my second-hand choice, but it's risky.)
"Next Moves" is the primary concern, and "Captured enemies" is the secondary concern.
I'm sceptical to some of the changes that the C&C subvariants make. The shuffling around is bad for unit cohesion and esprit de corps, and as has been noted a NCO concern, not one for the Commanding General. The branding may backfire, creating resentment, or even becoming a badge of honour among rebels.
The problem with Move Forward is the slavery. It is the worst option of the four by far and away; I refer to the several posts I've made in the thread earlier in the vote explaining why (also some more in this post, see below)
(My preference would be killing them. It's the human, honourable, quick, simple, practical, and least painful (save for freeing them) choice. Freeing them is my second-hand choice, but it's risky.)
#######
I agree with @Spacegnom that, beyond their use as a tool to optimise choices, they serve a narrative function. A quest is an interactive medium. As an example from this thread we can use my ransom proposal:
@Spacegnom , this and other talk in the thread about ransom gave me the following idea:
[] Gift the prisoners to the Hematius household for ransom and loyalty The household will dispose of them as it sees fit, keeping them captive until their dependents and relatives pay for them, or set them free after credible oaths to reject the rebellion.
Here's some reasons why it's good:
- The Hematius household really came through for us when the rest of the Bovianum nobles shuffled their feet, they richly deserve a substantial reward for their help
- It strengthens our future client in Rome
- it extracts more value per prisoner and in total compared to selling them on the open market (where they are damaged goods) by leveraging local knowledge about their personal relations
- the loyalty of a released prisoner is much easier to ensure if it is towards a particular household
- Instead of diluting the value across a half-legion, it has a considerable and substantial value for a smaller entity like the household.
Thoughts? Would you consider replacing your own write-in with this?
Input by anybody else also very welcome.
It's superior imho to both the enslave option and the free option, by outsourcing risks and downsides while keeping the upsides for the benefit a future client, though of course other players or @Telamon might disagree with this analysis.
But a more important meta-reason to me that I didn't mention in my arguing in its favour is that it involves a choice in a previous vote (Marius Himatus). This organically creates both plot points and character background, which will make future involvement of the character and their acting in the story much more natural and smooth. It makes our votes an unfolding narrative, instead of a series of disconnected decisions.
If humanitarian concerns are a reason you and other plan Move Forward voters are choosing it, you all are naively mistaken.
Chattel slavery is a true horror.
Article: Grim reality of life in ancient Rome revealed: Average worker was DEAD by 30 – having become riddled with arthritis and crippled by broken bones
- Study found that lower-class citizens did hard labour and ate rotting grains
- As a result, many suffered broken hand bones, collar bones and noses
- Arthritis in shoulders, knees and back were found in skeletons aged just 20
- Research was carried out on 2,000 skeletons found in the suburbs of Rome
[...]
Medical historian Valentina Gazzaniga told The Local: 'We can speculate that some of these people would have spent their lives working in nearby salt mines due to the patterns of arthritis they display.
'What's interesting is that the average age of death across the sample group was just 30, yet the skeletons still display severe damage wrought by the extremely difficult working conditions of the day.'
[...]
The life expectancy for hard labour in a salt mines was 2 to 4 years, but weaker, less healthy people would perish in a few months. Imagine the constant pain from the salt in your whipping wounds. All that suffering for blind narrow-minded greed, for a pathetically small handful of coins. It's a disgrace.
As I say my in comments on the plans earlier in this post, "[m]y preference would be killing them. It's the human, honourable, quick, simple, practical, and least painful (save for freeing them) choice. Freeing them is my second-hand choice, but it's risky."
Hell, even crucifixion might be more merciful. Maybe some would prefer torture to death for 3 days rather than for 3 months to 3 years.
I don't follow. Smoking is cancer. Just because their trench was bombarded is no excuse to smoke.
- Location
- nowhere
agreed. but please stop trying to force the modern viewpoint on that of ancient Roman society. as it is massively OOC for Attelus to think that way. Slavery is a very common thing for the time period and was not limited to Rome most cultures practiced slavery. It was an everyday and accepted fact of life
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
I'm not entirely surprised given the issues in contention.
xa na xa
A.E.I.O.U. - Antarticae est imperare orbi universo
- Location
- σ Octantis
It's funny.
When I argue for killing them I'm accused of wanting "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD"
When I argue against enslaving them I'm accused of "forcing the modern viewpoint"
I don't know who I am any longer, please tell me who I am???!!!!?????
Maybe I'm just that bad at arguing. ):
I'm just pointing out the objective awfulness of slavery, regardless of social views.
Romans had variable views (of course since they were not a homogeneous hivemind) on slavery ranging from indifferent or thinking it was a good and positive foundation of society to disliking for others, or having a hatred of it.
I don't actually have thought of what Atellus views are, I would assume within a conventional range, and I don't think it's important at all for the story (so far), unless they were extremist ones for or against.
The reason I'm pointing out the awfulness is because some seem to not be very aware of it, and show a childish attitude where "send them to the slave market" is the equivalent of "send the dog to a farm upstate".
For the record, one of the most enjoyable aspects of this quest for me personally is trying to play a historical character as accurately as possible. I very carefully separate my views from those of Atellus as a character. It makes me sad that people think I wouldn't.
But, the morals and ethics of slavery are a very minor and secondary reason to oppose the enslave them option anyway.
My two main reasons are 1) The monetary value is marginal 2) sending their relatives to chattel slavery is just as liable of enticing and inciting the ire of their relatives and other rebels, just like killing them or cruci.
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
Just because slavery was accepted doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Slavery was commonly used in Greece and Rome as a rhetorical tool to emphasize the importance of fighting and agency- because those without agency would become slaves, or were slaves. This is part of the mentality that characterized every Persian subject as a slave, even though this was hardly true.
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Plan Moving Forward
