If Caesar had lost???

[spittle]

Quote from Goldworthy:

"Bibulus fought with dreadful savagery but was not alone in this. From the beginnings of the war few Pompeians had shown any inclination to compete with Caesar in displays of clemancy and moderation. Cicero had been shocked by the attitudes he encountered in Pompeys camp. Most of the leading Pompeians declared that men who remained neutral were almost as bad as Caesars active partisans, and there was talk of widespread punishment when they finally led the army back to Italy."

 

To me this makes me think of Sulla's proscriptions ONLY worse.

 

Maybe, after the civil war had started, Caesars victory was the best option

 

Comments plaese.

[Aurelianus]

Caesars victory did a lot for Rome; if Pompey had won, there is no evidence to suggest he would have made himself Dictator (maybe first among the senate, but not in terms of power), so the civil wars would have continued until a monarchy was established, and the sooner that happened the better. After Sulla marched on Rome monarchy was inevitable. Rome was just lucky that Octavian as Caesars successor was an able politician.

 

I don

[Primus Pilus]

General agreement with Aurelianus...

 

The problem inherent in this scenario is Pompey. As long as Caesar existed, Pompey was somewhat reliant upon the opposition faction for his continued position. Without Caesar (and his army) Pompey might have been free to dictate his own terms. He may have initiated mass proscription, but the existing evidence of his non violent (though politically manipulative) return from his eastern campaign suggests that he would not have done what was feared. Despite what any other member of the camp may have been saying, Pompey would've been the only one with enough power (by virtue of his victorious army) to enable massive proscriptions (imo).

[spittle]

If Pompey had won he COULD have started massive proscriptions but WOULD he have?

 

Had the 'teenage butcher' mellowed with age?

 

Aurelianus. I do not understand your argument. Why was a monarchy Rome's manifest destiny?

Could the death of Caesar not result in a restrengthened Senate?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Caesar's attempted putsch was one of several that occurred after Sulla, including ones by Lentulus, Brutus, Sertorius, and Catiline--all defeated. In each case, the supporters of the putsch relied on promises of largesse for their supporters, and their defeats were hastened as soon as the prospects of those promises worsened. Due to a string of successes in Gaul, Caesar was undoubtedly the most formidable of all the post-Sullan usurpers, but defeating him most likely would have undermined the credibility of a generation of future traitors. Few could aspire to Caesar's record, so if Caesar could be defeated, what chance would they have?

 

Of course, it's naive to believe that defeating Caesar would have solved all the problems that led to his rise in the first place, but I do think Caesar's defeat would have given the republic the time it needed to solve the problems it faced, most importantly being the problem of checking the power of armed provincial governors, the ability to raise essentially private armies, and the vast loss of confidence in the senate as a fair and just adminstrator of the people's business.

 

These were difficult problems, to be sure, but the republic had previously faced far worse problems, yet shown itself capable of dealing with them, including the belated enfranchisement of the Italian allies and the defeats of Hannibal and Pyrrhus. In each case, the republic appeared at the edge of defeat, yet emerged stronger than ever. In my opinion, the defeat of Caesar would have marked another step in that cycle, and the republic would have been a greater and more secure government for it.

[spittle]

After Caesar was there ever a serious attempt to return to republicanism?

 

Why did the republic lose its ideals?

I think that Marius' allowing non property holders join the army evolved into the idea that property holder didn't need to. The seed of decadence was planted once the wealthy could pay the poor to fight theor battles while they pleasured themselves in ever ostentatious ways.

 

A friend of mine once said that the beginning of the end of true democracy started in ancient Athens when the wealthy were allowed to have someone stand as proxy for them during votes. It was the start of a political class rather than the direct democracy of every man making his own vote.

I see the Marian enlargement of the recruitment pool in a similar light.

 

As much as I admire Caesar I admit that he demonstrated much about himself by first ensuring laws to check the power of provincial governors to start wars (usually glory seeking) and then immediately broke them when given command of a province.

One rule for them, No rules for Caesar.

[M. Porcius Cato]

After Caesar was there ever a serious attempt to return to republicanism?

 

What is a 'serious' attempt?

[spittle]

A non serious attempt would be a few disgruntled Senators gathering to discuss a coup...and being found out and punished before any actual attempt was made.

 

A serious attempt would be when a considerable 'power' emerged with the intention of counter-revolution. Perhaps even making the prospect of a new Republic a real possibility.

 

After Caesars assassination Augustus and Antonius fought each other for ultimate power. Was this the pattern of things to come? Aspiring Emperors going to battle for the position? Or was there a Cromwellian/Napoleonic Roman strongman who led a faction/army intend on dissoving the monsrchy and re-instating true power to the Senate?

[Naso]

Many of the responses are focusing almost exclusively on Pompey; so I want to point out that there were others who were perhaps more truly Republican heroes in the war against Caesar (such as M. Porcius Cato, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, etc.) Remember that the Senate very reluctantly chose Pompey as their leader and only out of necessity. I say this only to encourage us to consider outcomes other than Caesar or Pompey. If Scipio and Cato had defeated Caesar in North Africa 2 years after Pharsalus, they would almost certainly have attempted to restore Republicanism. The Republicans were still very strong after Pharsalus and still had a good chance of defeating Caesar. Recall that very few senators actually died at Pharsalus; the only big name to die was L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. To us today, it's easy to think of Pharsalus essentially as the 'end' of the war, but to those living at the time, it was not at all a foregone conclusion that Caesar would win. Just consider how close later leaders came to defeating Caesarianism: Gnaeus Pompey, Brutus and Cassius; Lucius Antonius; Sextus Pompey, etc.

[spittle]

I'm as certain as possible that Cato would not have instigated widespread proscriptions as he regretted every loss of Roman life that occured in the civil war, whether Pompeian or Caesarian. Perhaps he would have been less upset at the death of Caesar himself....

 

But, intentions not withstanding, who would have had the ability to actually organise and complete a 'purge'?

[Naso]

I'm as certain as possible that Cato would not have instigated widespread proscriptions as he regretted every loss of Roman life that occured in the civil war, whether Pompeian or Caesarian. Perhaps he would have been less upset at the death of Caesar himself....

 

But, intentions not withstanding, who would have had the ability to actually organise and complete a 'purge'?

 

I certainly agree about Cato.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I like the way you think Naso.

[Primus Pilus]

We can reasonably predict the stance of Cato and his faction, the stance of Cicero and the moderates and even the surviving Caesarians. I will make the dangerous assumption that the surviving populares faction would've been stymied into at least temporary appeasement in the face of such an enormous defeat. Perhaps such a defeat would've actually refocused the movement onto its roots rather than singular grabs of power.

 

This is the reason the focus is on Pompey. He always was the wildcard in the game. The concept at play is that without Caesar's army as a counter threat to Pompey, he might have (and might is the key word) installed himself as dictator in absence of that threat and initiated his own purge. (I understand that this would have resulted in continued civil war with the forces in Africa, but this is a what if scenario we are discussing) Pompey showed a tendency to concede political issues and alliances provided his ego and social standing were stroked enough. Again, based on his actions after returning from the east originally, I get the impression that he would not have pushed to the point of proscription (a bit of unhealthy mob violence not withstanding). Of course the senate likely would need to have been willing to provide some sort of retirement for the victorious legions if they wished to avoid a repeat of the earlier dramatics and take away Pompey's leverage.

 

Conditions and circumstances, and reactions to them, are not always so easy to predict however.

[Germanicus]

I like the way you think Naso.

 

LOL

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Caesar could not have lost , he was a descendant of Mars .

 

Seriously , Caesar was a unique person but first of all , he was a product of his era , an era so different from the middle republic that he or another able , popular and charismatic general would inevitably have won .

 

The outcome of 03.15.44 BCE makes it clear that no matter who will win the civil war , the republic was dead . It was , as Ronald Syme said , a revolution , a contest between dynasties .

 

The Republic was dead since 133 BCE when Gracchus used his Tribunician power against the "Optimates" and they used armed force against him . Caesar was the outcome of a long and irreversible process as his murder proved .