Hmmm.
Ooor that whole Republic thing just disintagrates. I mean taking the wrong lession from a problem is age old tradition. Who says people won't blame the idea of Republic and look to a king for stability?
Because the Romans really did care about their traditions, and "NO KINGS" was just about the strongest of those traditions. They only tolerated an emperor after
decades of civil war and instability, and said emperor was pretty careful to observe the outward forms of respect for the institutions of the republic even as he eroded the reality.
It is far more likely that an inept or tyrannical strongman would be dismissed
as someone who tried to become a king and reinforce the "NO KINGS" tradition. The catch, of course, is the danger that the tyrannical strongman would be deposed by a more competent strongman, whose rule would then be fairly secure.
The big problem Rome faces is a cultural one. It trains and incentivises its elite to be ruthless and ubercompetitive bastards, just for the chance to enjoy a brief taste of supreme power. And then it takes that taste away, so that the next bastard in line can have a drink. And that was fine, when those bastards had no recourse but to pass the cup along.
But now the wine is stronger and sweeter, and it has been shown to them that they have another option - naked force. That wasn't available when Roman armies were comprised of propertied men with a stake in the Republic and its institutions. Now though, those armies are comprised of poor, desperate men with a stake in their generals' success and futures. (And you can't close that door now. The Republic has too many commitments in too many places.)
At this point, saving the Republic involves destroying its driving force: the energy and ambition of its aristocracy.
That, or somehow making the jump to the institutions of a modern nation-state (e.g. a standing army NOT paid by the aristocrats, and a government that can levy enough taxes on the aristocracy to fund that army).
I can't decide which is harder.
Plan Fortune's Favourite would be good if not for our current stats. We have the aptitude of a skilled tribune not a legate. Not to mention that we can't manage a wine stand, how're we meant to run a Legion? There's more to it than fighting, logistics is paramount. Keeping our men well fed and paid is key for loyalty. Something I'm fairly confident we wouldn't be able to achieve as we are.
Rufus might be solid on that front; I didn't get a good sense for whether his stewardship is good, bad, or unremarkable. That said, you're not wrong to point out that we might struggle to manage the finances and logistics of a legion if we attempt to usurp command of the Ninth.
The major draw is Tercerus though, the man although nearing the end of his lifetime is well experienced. As a former centurion he knows the intricacies of the Legions, something we can use to better our command. It seems a waste not to use him, considering if left he'd likely die regardless. He's the ablest diplomat, warrior and leader on our staff. Something we should make use of while we're still able.
That... is a fair point.
On a different note, I'm going to momentarily indulge my salt. This is exactly why I wanted to take another year. We neither want nor know how to leverage our position for further gain, so we're expending a great deal of effort to stand still. If we are essentially going to hang around doing nothing of note, we would have been much better off spending it learning with Scaevola and making friends in Rome.
There. Salt indulged. Moving on.
Out of curiosity... how would we be assured of the situation being better in a year?
I'd forgotten that. That does change the complexion of things, though I'm not sure if it would overcome the deep HATE between Sertorius and Sulla.
Huh. In retrospect, 'Old Friends' was probably the chance to open the Sertorius social link.
I don't think we're so obviously a Sulla advocate or supporter that Sertorius's personal hatred of the man would trigger, especially since Telamon didn't say a word about it. The "Us -> Scaevola -> Sulla" connection is a bit tenuous, especially since it sounds like Sertorius' hatred was
personal, not political. Just because he personally hates Sulla wouldn't mean he personally hates all Sulla's friends and all the clients of their friends.
