|
lenoon posted:Loyalists? Loyalists! Who here is loyal except those you decry as "traitors"?  Pretty much everyone apart from the aforesaid traitors. It's the whole 'Innocent until proven guilty' thing. Those who deliberately advocate for subjugation under the Pope or Islam and explicitly say as much are by definition being disloyal to our current ruler, by suggesting a different one.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
lenoon posted:Loyalists? Loyalists! Who here is loyal except those you decry as "traitors"?  I'm sorry, were you talking to me or just rambling angrily in the direction of the senate-at-large? AJ_Impy posted:
The only true proof is the decree of the Empress, I say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Loyalists? Loyalists! Who here is loyal except those you decry as "traitors"? The Bishop of Rome has forgotten the teachings of Christ and caused the Great Schism. The True Roman Church led by the Patriarch of Constantinople are the faithful followers of our Lord's teachings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
This senator is being rushed away by his sons after collapsing in apoplectic rage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
lenoon posted:This senator is being rushed away by his sons after collapsing in apoplectic rage. I'll pray for our disloyal colleague's health, and for his soul. But it seems a point worthy of exposition: The merchants, the Steppe folk, the Old and New men of the polities, my fellow Milvians and especially the Komnenians (And their little dog, too!) have never tried to supplant our Basilissa or our faith. You lot beneath the keys of Saint Peter and you beneath the crescent? Have. There is the dividing line between loyalty and disloyalty in our senate chamber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:01
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:And a finer senator than many others I could name. There are many admirable traits in a dog that is lacking in some of the senators here. And I resent their moniker of "Loyalists", as if we, the Komnenians, are not by far the most loyal and true to the dynasty, hence I claim them to be inferior copies, lacking any and all moral fiber and prohibit them from attending any of our parties, unless they bring drinks of course. Ah, but there's the thing: what of your loyalties should, God forbid, our line of Komnenid rulers come to an end, whether by treason most foul or a lack of heirs? Or if one of the other Komnenids should take up arms against our Basilissa? No, loyalty to the throne itself is the best course. For should the throne cease to be, we would all presumably have far greater concerns than who on Earth to pledge allegiance to in the face of the end of days. As for drinks... I happen to have several casks of spirits distilled from Cypriot molasses, cut with lime juice and a hint of ginger. I suppose I could arrange to bring one to the next gala.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Gnooble posted:The Bishop of Rome has forgotten the teachings of Christ and caused the Great Schism. The True Roman Church led by the Patriarch of Constantinople are the faithful followers of our Lord's teachings. Did not Jesus say unto Simon Peter "Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam", or, for those Romans who know not Latin, "καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης"? The Lord does not follow that with "but you, Andrew, shall be Patriarch of Nova Roma, and you totally get precedence over your brother."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Did not Jesus say unto Simon Peter "Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam", or, for those Romans who know not Latin, "καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης"? Wow, I think I can read that Latin. Looks like the three years I've spent doing pretty much nothing Latin-related after finishing up school have not yet taken all of that stuff away.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
The Sandman posted:Ah, but there's the thing: what of your loyalties should, God forbid, our line of Komnenid rulers come to an end, whether by treason most foul or a lack of heirs? Or if one of the other Komnenids should take up arms against our Basilissa?  Steppes and Republics If drinks are being brought to the senate meetings from now on my party would gladly supply some. I recommend a drink that our traders brought back with them from the Steppes of the Far East called "Kumis". I know not what it is made from but I assure you my fellow Senator that it does not want for taste.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Did not Jesus say unto Simon Peter "Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam", or, for those Romans who know not Latin, "καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης"? And we should accept that the current Bishop of Rome has Peter's authority for no other reason other than holding Peter's job because...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:And we should accept that the current Bishop of Rome has Peter's authority for no other reason other than holding Peter's job because...? Numbers 27:18-20 posted:dixitque Dominus ad eum tolle Iosue filium Nun virum in quo est spiritus et pone manum tuam super eum
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:21
|
|
Patter Song posted:And we should accept that the current Bishop of Rome has Peter's authority for no other reason other than holding Peter's job because...? Well, there is that totally legitimate and not at all obviously forged document that gives most of Italy over to him. Also because a completely independent hierarchy of priests is just what the Empire needs, since there aren't enough people already trying to tear down imperial authority so as to increase their own personal influence. And of course how could we forget the bit where we send substantial sums of money out of the Empire for that Bishop and his associates to spend as they see fit, and are given absentee bishops for our own churches as repayment. In summation, it's a brilliant scam concocted centuries ago and perpetuated to this day by people who saw the church as merely another way to collect power in their grubby hands. I suppose we really should look into ending it, though. All that money and land would be far more useful in the hands of people who aren't obligated to lie through their teeth about how much better they think heavenly rewards are compared to earthly ones.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
I'm going to run my own hands off game of ck2 from now on to determine where my senator votes. I'll basically be following the opinions of one of the Byzantine doux to the emperor and to a couple of other figures in my game. Where the family votes, I'll vote! I regret to inform my fellow senators that my father, Antonius Paulinus Thedopolus, was taken unto god this morning. I share his beliefs and look to further our shared papal heritage in his stead. For God and the Empress! My friends, my enemies, I salute you all in this time of strife.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
The Sandman posted:Also because a completely independent hierarchy of priests is just what the Empire needs, since there aren't enough people already trying to tear down imperial authority so as to increase their own personal influence.  Need I remind the august Senate of the Milvian scheme to hand all newly-reconquered territories over to a cadre of landed metropolitans? This would itself permit the Empire's church to directly collect tax for itself and keep the revenues, grant it temporal control over vast stretches of our territory, and establish a class of governors who answer to the Patriarchy, not the Monarchy. If you fear independently-minded priests, we are already on that path.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I'm going to run my own hands off game of ck2 from now on to determine where my senator votes. I'll basically be following the opinions of one of the Byzantine doux to the emperor and to a couple of other figures in my game. Where the family votes, I'll vote! I'd love to see how that hands off game turns out, by the way. Will the AI do a better job than I am? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Though I lack my late father's speech craft skills, I must second the issues put forward by the august senator before me, though please tolerate my fumbling tongue, I had hoped my maiden speech would be in calmer times. Let us consider the advantages of the papacy over the patriarchs growing fat from the spoils of our people. The papacy does little political but grant Catholic nations money and insists on nothing but a simple investiture of bishoprics! We can be an autonomous empire, backed by the entire united force of Christendom, if we but bend the knee to the representative of Christ on earth! Is that such a request?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
 Yes, yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
The Sandman posted:Ah, but there's the thing: what of your loyalties should, God forbid, our line of Komnenid rulers come to an end, whether by treason most foul or a lack of heirs? Or if one of the other Komnenids should take up arms against our Basilissa? On the other hand, those Cypriots do know how to make some good spirits, so I say welcome friend! I'm sure that eventually, you may see the light of the Komnenian faction and until then we shall wait patiently, with a good drink in hand!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
lenoon posted:
What you and the rest of the Papists forget, sir - or cleverly elide in an attempt to make yourselves seem less openly treasonous - is that the Papacy claims more authority than simply that of Christ's representative on Earth. Popes have in the past refused to coronate Holy Roman Emperors ('Roman', I know). Refused them acclimation as the rightful heir of their crowns. On what basis do any suspect that the Pope might not attempt to claim the same doctrinal supremacy over the true Roman Empire that we all serve? Will we subject ourselves to the whim of the Pope, that he may choose not to crown an Emperor or Empress of the Roman Empire for reasons passing understanding? To be blunt - you are suggesting that our Empress subordinate herself to outside rule. Such an act would be the very definition of treason. Yes, I know, the whole 'Pope refuses to coronate' bit isn't - as far as I'm aware - represented in CK2, but hell, neither is the Senate and we're all here arguing, so there
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:
And who does the Patriarch answer to? He always has, and always will, answer to the Throne of Caesars. To empower the Patriarch and the priests of the Orthodox Church would only provide loyal administrators. Besides Satan, the Pope is his own master, and you would subject us to him! Orthodoxy serves God's regent on earth, the Emperor, while the Pope seeks to usurp that power! Our power!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Pyroi posted:You know, that explains so much about the past week. By the way, your dog might be drunk now. And stranded in Rome. It's OK, Scruffles showed up this morning smelling of liquor and whorehouse doggie biscuits. He's been a very bad boy and won't be let out again any time soon, but there's nothing wrong with him a bath won't cure. Anyway let me just put on my official "I Love the Empress" hat... ...there we are. Now then, to business. On the subject of Chariot races, I propose that the official Komnenian party position be that while the greens are the empress' favorite, and therefor the best, the other teams be acknowledged as essential to our entertainment and gambling profits and should be treated with respect and not murdered in the streets when our team loses to the bastards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:It's OK, Scruffles showed up this morning smelling of liquor and whorehouse doggie biscuits. He's been a very bad boy and won't be let out again any time soon, but there's nothing wrong with him a bath won't cure. That's only fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
lenoon posted:
My condolences on your father's passing: He and I did often cross words in this august chamber, and I am sure you will represent him as well as filial duty decrees. Nonetheless, as Senator Binge and Senator Cyrahzax have stated, the request that the Empress, the Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων at the head of this holy Empire, subordinate herself to a bishop other than the Ecumenical Patriarch within whose jurisdiction we reside is untenable. The Bishop of Rome should be the first among equals, but the key phrase there is among equals. Even if, like Lucifer, he were not looking at the power the almighty bestowed upon his position and demanding ever more in a debased and heretical manner, Constantinople and Rome are autocephalous in relation to one another. For us to intrude upon church doctrine and promote that one bishop to a position of supremacy over all mankind, not only would it be extremely heretical, it would be an empire erasing a theologically ordained jurisdictional border, the worldly interfering with the sacred. We need to replace the heretic with a bishop of Rome which is orthodox in his ways, and which maintains their autocephaly without trying to expand it and supplant their fellow bishops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Can we get the Liturgical Christianity A/T thread in here to weigh in? I've seen the Empire referred to in the first person plural there more than once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:
Do you deny that patriarchs have also pursued policies which veered wildly from contemporary emperors? What about Patriarch Anastasius, who rose in rebellion again Constantine V and dared to excommunicate him? What about Nicholas Mysticus, who felt he had the authority to crown Simeon of Bulgaria emperor and dub him the equal of Leo VI, our beloved emperor of the time? What about Michael Cerularius, the man some of you Milvians have unwittingly been aping in rhetoric, who once even took to donning purple after a series of bitter disputes with Emperor Isaac Comnenus, the blessed forefather of our empire's most righteous dynasty?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:
Let us take your examples one by one. Anastasios did indeed raise in rebellion against the emperor, but as with all rebels, God was not with him. He was stripped of his office by the Emperor and blinded for his sins against man and God. However, the Emperor was merciful, and once he had demonstrated suitable contrition, restored him to his office. The whole incident was an unfortunate consequence of an ill-fated bout of iconoclasm, a theological question that fortunately has been resolved. If the rebellious pope is willing to submit to the empress and is truly, demonstrably repentant, it may be that he will be restored as the orthodox bishop of Rome, should God will it. Nicholas Mystikos was acting as regent for the infant Constantine VII. The Bulgarian army had invaded and was poised to sack Constantinople itself: The appointment of Simeon as Emperor of that nation was a last ditch, but ultimately successful, tactic to save the city, the Emperor and the Empire. Pope John X had no such excuse when he not only recognised Simeon as Emperor, but bestowed upon him the title 'Emperor of the Romans', a heretic crowning an enemy of the state! If Nicholas Mystikos was in the wrong, how much worse were the actions of his papist contemporary? Michael Kerularios did indeed go too far, was exiled and died whilst under accusation of heresy for his actions, although the matter never reached trial due to that demise. You are right to point the finger at him, for he greedily reached out to claim power that was not rightfully his own, just as the Pope in Rome has done. He paid the price for his heretical actions, just as the Pope in Rome should do. Let us not claim that every bishop of the Church has always been perfect, for all are men, of fallen Adam's stock. But those within the Empire who have stumbled whilst in high office have been duly chastised, Unlike the heretic in Rome you so strongly support. I agree that those who have misused their position, as with Anastasios, as with Kerularios and as with the Pope, need to be replaced with those truly loyal to Christian orthodoxy, and properly contained within the Empire. AJ_Impy fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Anyway let me just put on my official "I Love the Empress" hat...  I believe we can all say that murderous riots in the streets of Constantinople are exactly the kind of thing which the Senate as a whole frowns upon, and is not proper behavior for Imperial citizens. Anyone performing such behaviors should be brought before a judge for a well-deserved chastisement. A word of warning for members of the Senate who wish to partake of our fine colleague from the Steppes' hospitality. I have tried 'kumis' on another occasion, and wish to tell you beforehand: It is not poisoned. That's just what it tastes like. It is definitely an aquired taste. I am afraid I do not think I shall ever quite gain a taste for it; I shall have to remain provincial and slake my thirst with water and wine. And infusions of 'chai' leaves we seem to get from the merchants these days. It certainly invigorates the mind. On other matters, a number of artisans and iconographers (including cousin Lavrentos) have spoken with me. They're making noises about wanting the Senate to construct some kind of monument to stimulate the local economy and fatten their purses. Of course, I am not usually swayed by such senseless wastes of the Imperial purse, but with the loss of one of our number recently, I was thinking it would be appropriate to construct something and name it in honor of Senator Thedopolus. A bridge or a library, perhaps? Maybe a chapel?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
While we're talking about alcohol, I just want to mention that I managed to procure an oddity from an associate of mine in Kiev. It is apparently some sort of "grain wine" they have started fermenting there recently. I must say, it tastes... quite unlike any other drink I have experienced in the past. Goes down hot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:On other matters, a number of artisans and iconographers (including cousin Lavrentos) have spoken with me. They're making noises about wanting the Senate to construct some kind of monument to stimulate the local economy and fatten their purses. Of course, I am not usually swayed by such senseless wastes of the Imperial purse, but with the loss of one of our number recently, I was thinking it would be appropriate to construct something and name it in honor of Senator Thedopolus. A bridge or a library, perhaps? Maybe a chapel? On this note, I still have that bridge on the Bosporus that I am looking to sell off. I can give you a most agreeable price!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:
I thank you for your kind words and proposal, which I second. I feel a chapel commemorating the Donation of Constantine would be an appropriate monument to my father's legacy? Though, devout as he was, perhaps a street in the... Ahem... Less salubrious quarter would be a fitting testament to my father's extra-senatorial activities. It was, in the end, the debate that killed him, but his time with his young wife (now my wife - you will meet her doubtless as the next wine-and-figs soirée held by the "Traitor" party) fatally weakened his humouric balance which had burned so brightly with choler in recent times. I must confess that my tutors did not encourage me to move into the theological school, and my ignorance concerning matters both liturgical and ecumenical has left me staggered at the range and ability of my fellow senator's oratorical ejaculation. I, while most certainly am my father's son, needs must take time to acquire the knowledge other senators seem to have been born with. My own expertise lies more in the commercial field. For other senators such as I coming into the senate for the first time, and especially for those without my father's guidance, perhaps the Old Patriarch, or "OP" could include a summation of the parties' general philosophies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
The Sandman posted:
Hooray! I can't wait to loyally serve
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Though, devout as he was, perhaps a street in the... Ahem... Less salubrious quarter would be a fitting testament to my father's extra-senatorial activities. It was, in the end, the debate that killed him, but his time with his young wife (now my wife - you will meet her doubtless as the next wine-and-figs soirée held by the "Traitor" party) fatally weakened his humouric balance which had burned so brightly with choler in recent times. Pish and tosh. All men have their failings, and your father less than most. I can't say I knew the man as well as you do, but he was a good sort, and he at least conducted himself honorably in the Senate. quote:For other senators such as I coming into the senate for the first time, and especially for those without my father's guidance, perhaps the Old Patriarch, or "OP" could include a summation of the parties' general philosophies? Please, allow me to make a guide, biased and cynical as it may be. These are the flags of the Old Romans and the New Byzantines, the currently ascendant factions in the Senate. While theoretically we hold diametrically opposed positions- the Old Romans wishing to reclaim the glories of old Pagan Rome and the lands thereof, the New Byzantines wanting to cut free of tradition and forge a glorious new, unique future for the Empire of Constantine- in actual fact the difference between the two mostly comes down to which form of window-dressing you prefer. Me? I like purple. And here is the flag of the Milivans. They're pious, often to extremes, as well as quite bloodthirsty. Big fans of the reconquest of Rome. Also, I think they have a grudge against the douxes. One ran over their dog once or something.  Here are the flags of the Komnenians and the Loyalists. They both support the Empress and the Koumenian family fanatically, to the point of not having any real ethos of their own. For some reason, they're separate parties due to some minor point of political dogma. Nobody knows why. They also dislike the douxes, and the Komneians have excellent parties.  The Fraternalists are a special-interest party. They support the patrician families of Belgorod and Crimea, and generally think republics are cool. They, too, dislike the douxes. Nobody actually likes them, it's really just differing levels of dislike. Also, they have a swell purple flag. Steppes and Republics is a regional party, specifically for the merchant families of Belgorod and the people of the Bulgar steppes. They're a bit weird and a little provincial, but they're good people.   These two are less parties and more broad cross-party coalitions. The former is the New Marians, who support a larger Imperial retinue and further modernization of the army. The latter is the Expansionist Coalition, who desires that the Empire expand to the four corners of the Earth. They're both victims of their own succcess; nobody really opposes either of those, so nobody actually feels the need to join these coalitions.   And now we come to the sad corner where traitors, heretics, and heathens sit. All of these parties support the Empire forsaking the one true church. The Latinates wish that we resolve the schism by converting en-mass to Catholicism. The Guiding Light wants us to convert to Islam. (God save us.) And the Iconoclasts desire the mass-acceptance of the Iconoclastic heresy, the destruction of icons and relics, and calls for greater asceticism. None of them hold very much power or influence in the Senate, and God willing, never will. I honestly do not know how they keep getting in here. Ratoslov fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:
I think you'll find the Loyalist's would jump ship if the Komnenian family suddenly found itself ousted from power while the Komnenian's would fight for their return. So this makes them as bad as the heretics in my eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:
The Komnenians spent all the budget meant for Senate guards on wine. Of course, we all got very drunk and when we woke up the Guiding Light and Latinates claim we had voted to let them in, and honestly after the jockstrap incident none of us really remember what happened, and does anybody really want to go through the night with jockstrap incident in detail? Long story short, it's less awkward to let them stay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
occipitallobe posted:The Komnenians spent all the budget meant for Senate guards on wine. Of course, we all got very drunk and when we woke up the Guiding Light and Latinates claim we had voted to let them in, and honestly after the jockstrap incident none of us really remember what happened, and does anybody really want to go through the night with jockstrap incident in detail? Long story short, it's less awkward to let them stay. Just because you consider us heretics doesn't mean we can't appreciate a good drink.  As much as we highlight the importance of reconciliation with the West, we are still loyal Senators of the Empire.Boozetalk: I was given a bottle of rakomelo last week and that stuff is wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Looking over the minutes from yesterday's meeting, I can't help but recall a comment that I'd wanted to say something to then, but found myself unsure as to what to say. Today, though, I find myself better focused to address this:The Sandman posted:Ah, but there's the thing: what of your loyalties should, God forbid, our line of Komnenid rulers come to an end, whether by treason most foul or a lack of heirs? Or if one of the other Komnenids should take up arms against our Basilissa? Technically, we are senators, or perhaps the small dogs of senators: our loyalty must be to the Empire itself. While we have been called to action by the Imperial family, we are a constitutional fixture. The senate lacks the sheer power of a ruler, it is true. However, as a body, we go beyond rulers, and beyond dynasties: we must always be there, to help ensure the good of the Empire. Even the Komnenians... Probably recognize this, right? The belief is that our illustrious Emperor or Empress, as the timing allows, is of a family that has always been best for the Empire, so they'd know better than anyone what's best, right? ... Or, at least they'll say that if they're interested in visiting my family's extensive wine cellars. I wonder if we could bribe everyone to good behavior with the promise of drink. Your proposal, that what is best for the empire is to be simpering toadies to whomever is in charge, no matter whom, is... Chilling, actually. If we were all like you, one bad ruler could drag the whole senate with him. No, better to speak against the bad rulers and exalt the good, as is I think the place of a body such as this, and those we might be able to better, we should. Otherwise, there's no faith to any of it, and we might as well be a collection of parrots. (My apologies to any senator who sometimes sits out of the meeting, and leaves a collection of parrots in his place. I'm sure one of you does it.) Besides, I suspect that if the Komnenian family fell, we'd all be out on our asses. It's not like these hypothetical new rulers wouldn't have their own advisers, sycophants, and dogs of sycophants that they'd like in illustrious Government jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Given the demand for libations, it seems I'll need to return to my estates for a time to see to arranging a proper schedule of shipments. I can still comment on a few things before I must depart. Ratoslov posted:On other matters, a number of artisans and iconographers (including cousin Lavrentos) have spoken with me. They're making noises about wanting the Senate to construct some kind of monument to stimulate the local economy and fatten their purses. Of course, I am not usually swayed by such senseless wastes of the Imperial purse, but with the loss of one of our number recently, I was thinking it would be appropriate to construct something and name it in honor of Senator Thedopolus. A bridge or a library, perhaps? Maybe a chapel? D3m3 posted:Your proposal, that what is best for the empire is to be simpering toadies to whomever is in charge, no matter whom, is... Chilling, actually. If we were all like you, one bad ruler could drag the whole senate with him. No, better to speak against the bad rulers and exalt the good, as is I think the place of a body such as this, and those we might be able to better, we should. Otherwise, there's no faith to any of it, and we might as well be a collection of parrots. (My apologies to any senator who sometimes sits out of the meeting, and leaves a collection of parrots in his place. I'm sure one of you does it.) As for the latter issue... this is only a problem if one doesn't have the appropriate knowledge of cosmetics, wigs and costumes. Be prepared, that's the family motto. Lord Windy posted:
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:
Thoros III Qutuzid I've come to gather that the differences are more deeper rooted than that, in the way we view the world. The Old Romans, in some cases at least, are at best distrustful of anyone and everyone who isn't Greek and Orthodox, and would much rather see the minorities of our country stay that way. The New Byzantines seek to bypass cultural and religious borders and welcome everyone loyal to the Basilissa into the empire. The Old Romans want to see all money flow into the coffins of the Crown, we New Byzantines want every man to be able to make their own fortune and send the Crown its fair share of it rather than most of it. We're a party against extremism of all kinds - be it cultural, religious or both - and would rather seek Cooperation with and Tolerance for those of differing believes and languages than to exclude them. Likewise, I personally would seek to rename the our enemies to the east. Rather than calling them the "Turkish Empire" or "Muslim Heathens", which while both true ultimately vilify not only those of Turkish descent but those of the Mohammedan faith as well, why not name them for what they rule? The lands they have under their heel reminds us of the ancient Persians, does it not? Seljuk/Saimid Persia, thus making an enemy not of the Turkish people or the Islamic faith but the Saimids and Seljuks who seek to attack our glorious empress. Then again, I may only be speaking for myself and not for my party as a whole. If such is the case, this is at the very least my personal view on matters, and my personal view on the Old Romans of Byzantium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Luhood posted:I've come to gather that the differences are more deeper rooted than that, in the way we view the world. The Old Romans, in some cases at least, are at best distrustful of anyone and everyone who isn't Greek and Orthodox, and would much rather see the minorities of our country stay that way. The New Byzantines seek to bypass cultural and religious borders and welcome everyone loyal to the Basilissa into the empire. The Old Romans want to see all money flow into the coffins of the Crown, we New Byzantines want every man to be able to make their own fortune and send the Crown its fair share of it rather than most of it. We're a party against extremism of all kinds - be it cultural, religious or both - and would rather seek Cooperation with and Tolerance for those of differing believes and languages than to exclude them. My own view is that the Old Romans hold that, just as in days of the Pax Romana, anyone who accepts Roman law, assumes Roman custom, and is loyal to the Empire may freely call themselves and be proud to be Roman. The New Byzantines wish to accept a patchwork of different cultures and religions. So I guess you can say that the Old Romans want citizenship to mean assimilation to the ways of Constantinople (and Rome), and the New Byzantines don't care if you assimilate as long as you're loyal. In my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Look, itsa all very smple right? You all, you all senators, you always talking. Well, I say talking never done did saoolve nothing! No, it was action, it was when we, as romans, did huge action against the, the lesser people, that great things happened. Crossing the river with the dice, the, the guy witht elephants, we beat him, the moving of the capital, the victory, with the, the thing, you know. Action! And the Komnenians, they are like, the Caesars reborn, only even better! They are the greatest, guys, gals, whatever. And seeing as they are in charge, we, well, little indulgesneses like drink (haha, whats one more sip?) or women or wahtever, what are they? Of course we deserve that! It doesn't matter you know. So really, it's all very simple, just trust in the Empire and it trusts into you. You see who you can't trust, right away. Like the goddamn douxes, always plotting like some drat, plot-people. They won't share a drink, no! In case it poisons. So you find what you can trust in a world that is lacking in such things, and you stick to them. Stick, like, glue or another thing that sticks. That is hte Komenninas. That and drinking a lot of alchohol, becuase hell, from the bottom of the glass it almost makes sense. In vino veritas, they say. And that's how we see the truth. (The senator then gently waddles off, obviously well in his cups)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:05
|
|