What If Juilus Caesar Never Was Alive

[Scaevola]

Would Crassus sought glory in Parthia?

Could he have recruited an Anthony to do it instead?

[JetJon]

Forgive me; it has been a while now since I read up on Caesar

[Germanicus]

Yes Jetjon, I think that's a better question too. I think, and even hope, that your opinion is closely aligned with my own, in that Caesar was not a despotic man intent upon kingship or dictatorship in the long term. He was ahead of his time in his recognition of the plebians as a potentially powerfull political force to be nurtured, rather than stamped out and stood over, as the Senate continually sought to do through assassination of the brothers Grachi and the proscription lists of Sulla to name a couple. It was Caesar who restored the office of tribune of the plebs to it's rightful position, rolling back Sullas Patrician focused reforms, he did this despite facing massive opposition from, among others , Cicero.

 

To the actual question:- I guess if Caesar had never lived we would have been waiting a long time for an accurate calendar. As PP suggests, Augustus, who I believe did not follow or was not aware of Caesars actual intentions for the republic would probably never have come to power, but I think the vacuum left without Caesars presence during that time would have been filled by a member or members of the optimate faction. The tribunate would never have regained the powers originally lost to Sulla. The republic, as it was, would have failed anyway, to be replaced by a dictatorship or military junta of sorts.(whether Empire, Kingdom etc etc). Control would have been entirely in the hands of the patrician class.....again. With regard to Gaul, who can say ? I can't think of too many other Generals with the daring and intelligence to accomplish what Caesar did at Alesia ???

 

All just my opinion of course, and I have a lot more reading to do......

[Dogmatix]

What if Caesar had lived? An interesting question, and one I'm sure fuelled it's own heated debate amongst the conspiricy theorists of the time. I can just imagine "Caesar sitings" then as we "Elvis sitings" now.

 

Liticus Minimus: "You know, I saw Caeser!"

Junius Tobius (disbelievingly) : "You saw Caesar you say?"

Liticus Minimus: "I say I saw Caeser, sir!"

Junius Tobius: "Where did you sight Caeser then?"

Liticus Minimus: "Herculaneum! Selling Seshells! I saw Caesar sell seashells by the sea shore"

Junius Tobius: "Idiot"

[Sebastianus]

Celtic Gaul would not have had much more time to develop as a credible threat to the Roman military machine. And politically it would probably only have taken a serious incursion into Gallia Cisalpina for Rome to set in motion to accomplish what Caesar did. However I think that the conquest and pacification would have taken longer than Caesar's magnificient tour de force.

 

But the republic would have fallen anyway, the stylings of the principat would be different, but remember that Augustus transfering of Roman society from Republican to early Imperial was so smooth because he used traditional Roman political (and social) instruments to his own gain, thereby smoothly sliding the Republic into a defacto dictatorship, without appearing to take power from anyone else.

 

I think that without Caesar we would have gotten a similar situation eventually, not exactly the same, because Octavian had first hand knowledge and use of what happened to his relative Caesar. And he realised that the dictatorship was not the instrument to use to gain absolute power. Eventually someone else would have got it too.

 

By the time of Caesar especially after Marius reforms of the legions, the Roman military machine was unmatched so there would still have been an empire. Perhaps the delayed transfer into the principate the absence of Caesar (and Octavian) would precipitate, would result in a hastened territorial expansion (as a result of the power struggle). The empire might have been bigger and therefore harder to control, so that a collapse would have come sooner?

 

And of course the non-english speaking European nations would've lost the current title of high-king 'Emperor' in English. Kaiser in German, Tsar in Russian...Caesar in Latin.

 

But I'm no expert...

[Germanicus]

None of us are experts Sebastianus, thats the beauty of the forum. I often try to think of another individual who has echoed down through the ages as much as Caesar. Alexander certainly, then Caesar, but is it purely romanticism that prevents me from adding Napoleon to the list ? I don't think so. We have Caesars commentaries, and many other accounts of his exploits both political and military that lend weight to his legend. Along with the point that you make - that so many other rulers have been called by his name, none other seemed sufficient at the time I guess..........uh oh, I seem to have come down with a case of Divius Julius I suppose this is the topic to do it in ??

[Ursus]

It's hard for me to imagine the Roman world without Caesar, but sometimes I do wonder what would have happened if Antony rather than Octavian had gained the upper hand in the civil war that followed. The center of the Roman world would have shifted to Alexandria. Antony and Cleopatra would have reigned as Osiris and Isis (or Dionysus and Venus) on earth, and subjected the Roman empire to the worst excesses of Oriental Despotism. Western culture would have been steeped in Oriental mysticism and Oriental/Egyptian motives. And if Christianity still developed, it probably would have taken on a more Oriental/Egyptian flavor than what prevailed in the Western Europe.

 

And Cleopatra would have become simply the most influential woman in history.

 

I guess for me Caesar is the one who took the penultimate step to empirehood, but the exact nature of the empire was entirely in the hands of his successors, which makes the struggle between Octavian and Antony one of the most important in history. If Antony had won I'd think the West would have been a very different place.

[Sebastianus]

The only problem with your version Optio is that Anthony, would probably not had the position he had at Caesar's death, without Caesar. And maybe Cleopatra would not have become Queen without Caesar, and Egypt would probably had been gobbled up anyway. I do not believe Egypt would ever had ruled Rome, there would simply have been another general than Agrippa (or maybe even him) that had conqured Egypt. Rome would never have accepted an eastern style kingship, even if it was Anthony who led it. They didn't accept kingship aspirations from Caesar, why would they from someone so infinately inferior?

 

Of course this is only my opinion...

 

I think there's an alternate history novel about this issue? Have you read it Optio?

[Primus Pilus]

I think its important to understand that Caesar was a great man who filled a gap in history perfectly. If not for Caesar, Rome would've followed a similar, yet decidedly alternate path.

 

Some conjecture...

Without Caesar, Crassus and Pompey would've never become reluctant allies. They very well may have developed a rivalry far more serious than it already was. Was civil war inevitable? Maybe not. Without Caesar's campaigns in Gaul perhaps Crassus didn't need to seek glory in Parthia.

 

But I am getting too far ahead. Without Caesar, Pompey's veterans probably never get settled. What does Pompey do with an large army that the Senate refuses to grant retirement benefits? Perhaps Pompey becomes another Sulla. Perhaps men like Clodius become even more dangerous, though I doubt that a tribune demigod could ever have been more than a major disturbance. Cato, without Caesar to thwart him, may have developed truly into the greatest Republican statesmen ever, and saved the Republic.

 

However, I doubt it. In the late Republic statesmenship never won, the men best generals and the best armies did. Alas, the Republic was doomed with or without Caesar.