There is the argument that we are damaging our career with this move and a bad roll will certainly do so. Thankfully we have the orator trait, so we might be able to pull this off.I'm still trying to get a grip on where "there shouldn't be punishment for this" is coming from.
I'm still trying to get a grip on where "there shouldn't be punishment for this" is coming from.
I agree that Atellus doesn't have standing to admonish the legion for acting immorally, but that isn't even what the leading option ("Discipline") is about.
It's about, well, discipline. If the legate commanding the legion says "halt," then you halt.
For starters, they are a conquered people trying to resist. I doubt even Atellus would label them "traitors".
However, the monument is something personal. It's on the one hand an obvious warning, but at the same time also a promise for those who seek a future within Rome. It specifically alludes to Atellus' now famous speech to the Pentri about our stick and carrot strategy here in Samnium. Those who resist will feel the whole might of Rome, but those who don't, Bovianum and the Hirpini for example, those are rewarded and protected.
It can also serve as a sort of gravestone (as it even mentions the year the city was razed) and feels like giving the dead some due/Atellus showing a little bit of regret and respect (we shouldn't forget that there weren't just Samnite warriors in the city, but also Roman citizens imprisoned with them. And Romans don't tend to think about celebrating killing fellow Romans during this age).
But the last option is the most promising -- and the most excessive. He could conduct a campaign of extermination, a move supported by many in Rome. He could drive the Samnite armies into the sea, he could burn their cities and raze their towns. Their statues, their works of art, their people and their culture would be swallowed up forever by the might of Rome. Those civilians and common people left would either be sold into slavery or broken up and divided into the general Roman population -- in a word, the Samnite would share the fate of the Carthaginian and the Macedonian before him.
Most importantly, however, the Samnite lands, newly cleared, would be free for settlement by the legion, a move for which Sertorius and his supporters in Rome could lobby. If successful, it would forever tie the men of the Sixth Legion -- and their sons, and their son's sons -- to Sertorius, the great general who gave them land and wealth, providing a permanent powerbase for Sertorius, his descendants, and their allies.
And? We voted for the Social War, not the heavy handed Sulla strategy.
Who?
It been 2 months of siege. I doubt they would have shared food with prisoners.
I would vote the memorial but like I said I'm against punishing the legion. Maybe ask the creator of Vae Victis to add it in but I'm unsure since doing nothing is incompatible I think. That's just the rule though, OP should understand what the vote means.Options include "fine the legionnaires for disobeying orders" and "put up a stone monument saying that this is where Nola used to be and what happened to it," though those are both write-ins I came up with. As you see, the plan I vote for above contains them.
To this point that people seem to be making, I'd like to quote the text above the voting options:It is upon Sertorius to do the punishment not us, if we do this legion will know who stood behind this and we will lose standing we tried to build.
Sertorious is withdrawn, for whatever reason we don't know as of yet, but what this does mean is that we as Legion's Broad Striped Tribune are in charge of cleaning the aftermath of the Sack. The notion that it's Sertorious responsibility is without merit, we're his second in command, it's our role as tribune to take command when our commander is indisposed for whatever reason, injury or whatever it may be that is our job.You could not stop it from happening, but you might affect what happens after. Sertorius is withdrawn -- angry, perhaps, or something else -- and your judgement may well be law as far as the men are concerned. Speak, Tribune, and see it done.
[X] Plan Optimat Politics
-[X] Write-In: Discipline. It is said soldiers ignored Sertorius and his officers' commands to cease during the sack. There must be a punishment for such insubordination. You have the pay of all men who ignored orders heavily docked. Gold speaks louder than blood.
-[X] Write-In: Memorial. Have a stone monument erected outside the ruins of Nola, with an inscription in large letters, high enough off the ground that a man cannot easily reach it. "Here stood the city of Nola, spurning the outstretched hand of Rome. Here came the sword of Rome, in the year of Flaccus and Marius. Here fell the city of Nola."
-[X] The Cult of Mars: You attempt to solidify your small cult, turning it into an organization which may survive the transition from military life to civilian. Having brothers bound by bonds deeper than blood in the killing fields of the Senate may prove useful.
-[X] Expand Journal: You begin expanding your journal to include more than strictly military matters, such as political happenings or philosophical musings.
-[X] Make Connections: Ever aloof and arrogant, the aristocrats of the equtii, the knights of Rome, have come to respect you as a leader to look up to over the course of this campaign. You could try to make some deeper connections that might serve you well in the city.
...The Sixth Legion killed thousands of people, many of them unarmed, at least some of them nonhostile, some of them children.
Do you really think it's time for a party, or are you just trolling?
The Camp Prefect, in the context of this particular legion at least, seems to be serving as a combination of logistics officer and senior-most NCO. He's not going to make a disciplinary decision this important on his own. Sertorius is in a brown study and won't.
The bare fact that we can make such a decision is an argument that we should.
Do you consider it hypocritical to punish the troops for disobeying Sertorius' orders?
If he commanded them to stop, and they didn't, then that's important.
If he commanded Atellus to stop, and he didn't, then Atellus should forfeit a share of his loot consistent with the share lost by the troops being fined.
That's why my preferred plan(s) revolve around fining the men, not beating them or berating them for massacring the city. I'm trying to make the narrative around this "Sertorius told you to stop, and you didn't, and that's wrong." I don't consider that hypocritical, especially since if it applies to Atellus I for one am going to vote in favor of him giving up an appropriate share of his loot from the campaign.
I'll ask you what I asked @skaro .
Do you like where this goes if we decide that the total destruction of a Roman city that had been occupied by rebels is grounds for celebration?
Wait. Did you just call the ancient historian Livy "PC" and "forcing modern morality onto our character?"
Look, as I've discussed above, I think there is a lot of room here to register that in-character Atellus thinks something wrong just happened, even WITHOUT the ultimate and unforgivable sins of "being PC" or "forcing modern morality onto our character."
What I don't understand is what makes you so eager to not have Atellus think that something wrong just happened.
Humbly, I think the underlined passage in your quote takes it a little far.
SHOULD have?
We have two free actions we can take regarding how we respond to the sacking of the city. They do not consume resources from the action economy of three personal actions we can take.
Options include "fine the legionnaires for disobeying orders" and "put up a stone monument saying that this is where Nola used to be and what happened to it," though those are both write-ins I came up with. As you see, the plan I vote for above contains them.
The Senate ordered us to return, because Nola wasn't considered a threat. Then Atellus gave the order to assault and sack the city.You do not remember much of that day, afterwards. You remember the cold morning in Sertorius' tent, your breath misting as he explained in a sharp tone that the Senate had recalled his legion, that they did not think Nola a threat any longer, that they ordered him to return to Rome. You remember the look in his eyes as you realized that some part of him hated this city, too.
You remember Mercator's hushed warning -- "They will not stop." -- and Sertorius' silence that was his answer. You remember the order -- you remember giving it as it fell from your lips. You remember the wolves' eyes glinting as the ladders were raised, as the siege engines rolled forward.
You find Sertorius where the gates of the city once stood, his blood-red cloak fluttering in the wind. His single eye surveys the wreck with an emotion you cannot quite fix, and there is an odd look upon his weathered face.
When he sees you, he at first says nothing, but instead stoops deep and runs a finger through the thick black ash coating the earth.
The Senate had ordered us to return and implicitly ordered us to spare Nola. Atellus then lead the devastation of the city. Looking at what was written, it is entirely possible that Atellus was the one who went counter to orders, and the reason why Sertorius is acting so strangely is because rather than stringing us up for violating his orders to stop, he's going to act as though he had given the order to sack the city and some of the men got carried away.The legatus claps you on your shoulder as he turns away. "Have no fear, Atellus. You will see just reward for your deeds in the capture of the city. I will make special note of you to the Senate. Someday, you may burn cities yourself."
Hopefully we can nip it in the bud this time. Thankfully we can trust our QM not to be complicit by doing shit like:I want to point out to folks that the last time there was a Rome Quest where people were cheering on war-crimes, it did not end well for them.
The flip side of that is that the legion thinks almost as highly of as as they do of Sertorius: 7/10 instead of 8/10.It is upon Sertorius to do the punishment not us, if we do this legion will know who stood behind this and we will lose standing we tried to build.
...
I think @Telamon would say something if we had reason to think that the Samnite rebels had deprived all the Romans within the city of food and left them to starve. Among other things, that would be a very risky move for the Samnites, because it would give the Romans every incentive to try something desperate to let the Sixth Legion into the city rather earlier.It been 2 months of siege. I doubt they would have shared food with prisoners.
I will reiterate that my IC reason for doing so is basically "the legionnaires disobeyed orders." It's the commanding general's job to restrain his troops, but it's also the troops' job to obey the general when he tries to do so.I would vote the memorial but like I said I'm against punishing the legion
You didn't answer the question.We should celebrate. It has been a long and hard campaign and we have discovered wine that will otherwise be selfishly sold off at a profit when we reach Rome. Instead of allowing such a disaster to happen we should use the wine while we have it and earn the love of our men with our generosity and kindness.
You know, re-reading it, I almost wonder if the issue isn't that Atellus was leading the berserk sack against orders--
The Senate ordered us to return, because Nola wasn't considered a threat. Then Atellus gave the order to assault and sack the city.
The Senate had ordered us to return and implicitly ordered us to spare Nola. Atellus then lead the devastation of the city. Looking at what was written, it is entirely possible that Atellus was the one who went counter to orders, and the reason why Sertorius is acting so strangely is because rather than stringing us up for violating his orders to stop, he's going to act as though he had given the order to sack the city and some of the men got carried away.
@Telamon
Is this something that's intended to be a question, or am I just reading into things that aren't there?
Ahh. So as Veniximaeus no doubt tells his Gauls on a regular basis, often with a lot of shouting and hitting:Sertorius, as far as you can tell, is acting strangely because he didn't want the city destroyed. He was going to make a new power base in the Italian heartlands out of it.
OK, so that clears it up. And, again, taking this purely from the standpoint of being a Roman, not only was this a particularly savage and horrific act, and not only did the soldiers disobey their general, but they also own-goaled themselves, because it looks like Sertorius won't be able to get Nola as a colony for his veterans now because his veterans destroyed the place.Like SimonJester says, Atellus was in a semi-disassociative state for most of the battle. However, he does remember Sertorius calling the officers together and giving the order to storm the city. That the words fell from your lips was a consequence of your duty as second-in-command.
This is, of course, just what Atellus remembers.