The Zulu people are currently electing a new ruler, so in the meantime, the royal Zulu counsel will address this counter offer.
The royal counsel finds your offer unacceptable. Although we wish for peace, we cannot drive our people from sacred Zulu land.
Your initial offer to the Zulu was peace, and we settle no further north, you settle no further south. Now, after you have convinced the world that the English are the "victim" here, you request we destroy one of our cities for English benefit? Is this request really coming from the same civilization that considers destruction of neutral roads an act of war?
We would hardly consider the placement of Bulawayo as an "aggressive move" to stifle the English. This is no doubt another sympathy tactic by your government to play victim for imperialistic gain. We seriously question the intelligence and/or objectivity of any nation that agrees with your line of thinking.
Make no mistake, the new Zulu leader will not compromise his peoples rights over a perceived injustice by another nation. The Zulu were there first, and there the Zulu shall remain.
If an end to this war is truly what the English seek, they should be willing to do so without compensation. We as a people apologize for Levi's interference with your roads, but will not sell ourselves short over what is now primarily a boarder dispute... not a bid for genocide as in the days of Levi.
Our counter offer is as follows...
1. No war 300 turns.
2. No restrictions on crosses. This should give you a little more elbow room.
As before, if you are willing to deal with Nottingham in exchange for land further west we may be willing to work with that. We will not however, hand over all land north of our capital.
Time is running out King Ozzy. We suggest you agree to a fair agreement, as opposed to trying to wheel and deal a little extra land out of this situation.
- Royal Counsel of the Zulu Tribes
The royal counsel finds your offer unacceptable. Although we wish for peace, we cannot drive our people from sacred Zulu land.
Your initial offer to the Zulu was peace, and we settle no further north, you settle no further south. Now, after you have convinced the world that the English are the "victim" here, you request we destroy one of our cities for English benefit? Is this request really coming from the same civilization that considers destruction of neutral roads an act of war?
We would hardly consider the placement of Bulawayo as an "aggressive move" to stifle the English. This is no doubt another sympathy tactic by your government to play victim for imperialistic gain. We seriously question the intelligence and/or objectivity of any nation that agrees with your line of thinking.
Make no mistake, the new Zulu leader will not compromise his peoples rights over a perceived injustice by another nation. The Zulu were there first, and there the Zulu shall remain.
If an end to this war is truly what the English seek, they should be willing to do so without compensation. We as a people apologize for Levi's interference with your roads, but will not sell ourselves short over what is now primarily a boarder dispute... not a bid for genocide as in the days of Levi.
Our counter offer is as follows...
1. No war 300 turns.
2. No restrictions on crosses. This should give you a little more elbow room.
As before, if you are willing to deal with Nottingham in exchange for land further west we may be willing to work with that. We will not however, hand over all land north of our capital.
Time is running out King Ozzy. We suggest you agree to a fair agreement, as opposed to trying to wheel and deal a little extra land out of this situation.
- Royal Counsel of the Zulu Tribes
Comment