Alternate Caesar History

[Currahee Chris]

Hello to all:

This is my first thread here and I am definately just learning about the history of Rome so try and bear with me. :oops:

I have often wondered what Caesar might have accomplished- conquest wise- had he not been assassinated. Anyone have any theories? Does anyone believe he would have eclipsed Alexander's achievements in the ancient world.

Thank you for your thoughts.
CC

[Jona Lendering]

IMHO, he would have gone to the east, would have defeated the Parthians, would have returned, would have celebrated a triumph, and would have been assassinated by others. His power was unconstitutional; there were solutions, like combining republican offices and imperium maius, which had been attempted by Pompey; Caesar knew them, and did not continue Pompey's policy. I do not think that success in Parthia would have changed that. Caesar destroyed the republic, but lacked the imagination of a Pompey to create something new. It was left to Octavian to continue Pompey's policies.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Errr, come on now Jona, that is absolutely...ummmm, how to put this politely.....a bit fantastic!

Caesar was the starting point for all of Octavians policies, pompay was pushed from pillar to post by the aristocrats and was certainly not of the imaginative type at all. The Republic was nothing more than a name by that time, and Caesar was the one who could see past it.

[Jona Lendering]

pompay ... was certainly not of the imaginative type at all.

I beg to differ. He was the greatest political experimenter: look at the combination of offices, the effective powerbase in the proconsulship, rule through legates, and especially the imperium maius. All four were copied by Octavian; Caesar also copied some of Pompey's innovations, but essentially opted for the perennial dicatatorship, which was a political dead end. Pompey also introduced the consulship without colleague, an innovation again, although not repeated until, if I recall correctly, Nero, when the consulship had a different function.

[germanicus Julius Caesar]

I agree with Jona. I believe that Caesar would have been assassinated even if he had triumphed over the parthians. It was bound to happen, he had too many enemies within the senate who saw him as the ulitmate threat to the republic and their way of life.

Personally I have long wondered what Rome would have become if Germanicus had become Emperor.

[john m roberts]

There is evidence that Caesar was seriously Ill at the time of his assassination. He might not have been able to survive the privations of one more campaign and could well have died in Syria of natural causes. And I agree with Jona that Pompey was one of Rome's most gifted administrators. It's just that he was so obsessed with military glory that it's easy to overlook his mastery in this field. His campaign against the Mediterranean pirates was above all a triumph of organization, allowing him an overwhelming and all but bloodless victory. I don't know if Augustus realy studied Pompey (though Agrippa or Macaenas may well have) but he certainly understood that Rome had to be rebuilt and controlled through careful administration, not military adventurism.

[Epictetus]

It always seemed to me that Caesar followed Sulla's lead, but without the bloodbath. In contrast Augustus followed Pompey, but with more force.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmmm, different shades of gray.

What exactly was a consulship without coleague if not another name for a dictatorship...nothing new there at all.

I can't say there is much inovative in anything pompay did....he was just trying to stay in with the aristocrats and maintain the old failing system, of which Sulla was a prime example.....the Republic was no more once he marched on Rome...theonly thing you can say in Sullas favour is he had enough sense to remove himself instead of hanging on to power.....

[Jona Lendering]

What exactly was a consulship without coleague if not another name for a dictatorship.

There's quite a difference: a consul's measures were subject to veto, and a consul could not overrule magistracies with imperium of their own. A consul without colleague could encounter praetorian opposition. Note, in this context, that Pompey had always, even when he still used the optimate tactic, a proponent of the restoration of the tribunicial powers. When he had successfully demolished the Sullan system, he started to use popular tactics; being outsmarted by Caesar and Marc Antony, he reverted nilly-willy to the optimate tactics.

the Republic was no more once he marched on Rome...

That's Caesarian propaganda, and I think that Marc Antony's policy showed that the system was still capable of self-reform after Caesar's coup. Maybe the Bellum Mutinense was the real turning point.

[Currahee Chris]

Wow- just wow

I thank everyone for their contributions so far. Again, I am a rookie when it comes to learning about Rome- and the ancient world in general- I appreciate all the responses thus far- clearly I have found a new virtual home

Cheers
CC

[Robert Vermaat]

IMHO, he would have gone to the east, would have defeated the Parthians, would have returned, would have celebrated a triumph, and would have been assassinated by others.

Possible, true, but why let it come to that. I think it even more likely that while Caesar would have been engaged in a campaign of at leat three years, his opponents would have rebelled against his rule while he was away, isolating him in the East, and Caesar would have been obliged to defeat them in battle. If Caesar had defeated the Parthians his asassination would have been very difficult to explain to the public, even harder then it turned out to be.

[Theodosius the Great]

I have often wondered what Caesar might have accomplished- conquest wise- had he not been assassinated. Anyone have any theories? Does anyone believe he would have eclipsed Alexander's achievements in the ancient world.

No way. As John already hinted at, Caesar was basically a dying man by the time he returned to Rome for the last time. But even if his health did not deteriorate I don't think Rome had the resources to allow one man to rival the conquests of Alexander. But Caesar would have the best chance of doing it, IMO.

the Republic was no more once he [Sulla] marched on Rome...

That's Caesarian propaganda, and I think that Marc Antony's policy showed that the system was still capable of self-reform after Caesar's coup. Maybe the Bellum Mutinense was the real turning point.

Agreed, there's quite a difference between what the two men did. Sulla was a legitimately elected Consul of Rome whose duty was to defend the Republic from any internal or external threats. Caesar was merely Proconsul of the Gallic provinces who illegally invaded Italy, starting a war for no good reason.

Much of Sulla's reforms remained intact long after his death, BTW. I think it's too sweeping to say his system was demolished. Even Caesar reaffirmed some of Sulla's laws.

I mentioned this before on another thread but...A great book on Late Republican politics is "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" by Erich S. Gruen. He concludes that Roman politics in the age of Cicero was marked far more by continuity than by innovation. Electoral results clearly show the consulships, praetorships, and aedileships were still often held disproportionately by the aristocrats. The Tribunate was often filled with men from families whose ancestors had sat in the Senate too. When Pompey had amassed a Senatorial following it fragmented after a short while. Even the under the first triumvirate after they had excercised their influence it caused a no less equal reaction causing its followers to split up.Most of the time the triumvirate did NOT get its way after its initial success.

I can't give the book full justice here on the forum but if you get a copy and read the conclusion, Appendices II and III you'll see for yourself how the Republic was not tottering toward oblivion during the time of Cicero. The main part of the book reviews in great detail Roman electoral politics during the last five decades of the Republic using primary sources (e.g. Cicero). Also covered are criminal trials, agrairian reform, food shortages, and extra-ordinary army commands. One point that is stressed is how flexible the Roman constitution really was. Cicero himself summed it up well : Romans have always conformed to convention in times of peace, to expediency in time of war - ever improvising policies to meet emergencies.

~Theo

[Narukami]

A very interesting conversation in this thread.

I must say, however, that the Republic was in serious trouble, perhaps fatally so, because of the unbridled greed of the senators who essentially stole the public lands and used them as their private farms worked by slaves. How long could the Republic has sustained a system than enriched the already rich while leaving the common people, particularly discharged veterans, with no viable means of support?

It seems to me that eventually, and perhaps sooner than later, a critical mass would have been reached and the issue settled in the streets of Rome.

The Gracchi brothers saw this clearly. Pompey too needed to settle his veterans as did Caesar and they, being good Romans, were pragmatic and practical in seeking solutions. That the Senate continued to oppose them pushed the issue and the solution further outside the norms of Roman politics.

Besides all that...

I also wonder if Caesar could have won a victory against the Parthians.

What would a victory have looked like?

A peace treaty favorable to Rome (or at least to Julius)?
Complete annihilation of the Parthians?
Turning the East into a province like Gaul? Could that have even been done?

Caesar was a good general, and more importantly he was lucky so in fact he probably would have beaten the Parthians on the battlefield. However, victory on the battlefield alone does not guarantee a lasting peace or a lasting victory. Even if he had achieved a victory would it have lasted beyond his departure or death? Or would it be a victory similar to the victories he claimed at the conclusion of his invasions of Britain?

Caesar was also a vigorous man, amazingly so, but at his age did he have another campaign in him? What if he had died in the East of natural causes? Would the succession have transpired in the same way?

I do think it very likely that once Caesar was beyond the Euphrates his enemies in Rome would have seized power and Caesar would have been forced to fight yet another civil war.

Many interesting and "fun" questions.

I would also recommend Michael Parenti's book: The Assassination of Julius Caesar. It is certainly pro Julius, but I think Parenti's points are well founded.

Ah..the dinner bell has just sounded so I'm off for the evening meal.

Fascinating discussion -- as we have observed before, this site is never dull and often quite provocative.

:wink:

Narukami

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

WarLords of the Late Roman Republic is another good analysis of the dying days of the BC era....

[Gregg]

It should be remembered that according to Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus and Appian, Caesar intended one enormous campaign where he would attack and defeat the Dacians first, and then the Parthians. Only Plutarch claimed that Caesar was planning to go after the Parthians first and the Dacians after. Either way, it would without a doubt have been the most ambitions attempt at conquest in Rome’s long history.

Caesar had gathered sixteen legions and ten thousand cavalry for the campaign, so he obviously took the threats he was to face seriously. But how knowledgeable he was of his enemies and the logistical difficulties he would face is another matter.

Almost all the sources claim Caesar intended to attack the Dacians first. And while I can’t speak for the difficulties Caesar would have faced in defeating them, it’s fair to say he probably had little if any information on the political and military system of the Dacians, and none at all about the terrain he would be campaigning through. Judging by Trajan’s experiences, I doubt Caesar would have found the Dacians a pushover. Even if we assume conquest of the Dacians was possible, we can only guess how many years it would have taken, and how long before Caesar felt confident enough to move his forces out of Dacia to attack the Parthians. But again, the difficulties he would have faced in simply moving his forces from Dacia to attack the Parthians (he apparently intended to circle around from the north) seem almost insurmountable if you look at a modern map. And comparing Caesar’s over-all plan against a modern map is startling, clearly reflecting the highly distorted view the Roman’s had of the world, particularly the world outside her empire. For instance, despite years of contact and access to numerous sources, Pliny still believed the Parthian Empire was only 944 miles long (it was at the time probably over 1700 miles long). Reconstructed maps of the world based on surviving descriptions suggest the Romans imagined Northern Europe and Asia to be very small or non-existent.

And whatever his plan of attack, actually conquering the Parthian Empire would have been another matter altogether. Parthia wasn’t Gaul. Unlike the weakened and divided Parthia faced by Trajan and later emperors, Caesar would have been confronted with a unified Parthian Empire at or near the peak of its economic and military power, lead by either Orodes II or Phraates IV, both very strong kings. Despite recent military actions against the Parthians, it’s doubtful Caesar knew much more about the Parthian military system than Crassus did, and probably nothing about Parthia’s size and manpower potential. Neither, arguably, was the late Republican Roman military as sophisticated as that of Trajan. In my opinion it’s very unlikely Caesar could have succeeded against the Parthians, and either would have faced total defeat, like Crassus, or been driven out like Antony.

Gregg