If Caesar had lost???

[The Augusta]

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 .

 

I tend to agree with this, Caesar, and although I can see where Cato (above) was coming from when he said that Julius as an individual is perhaps 'responsible' for the downfall of the Republic, like you I believe that the political climate had to be right to produce such an individual. I have always been of the belief that the great characters of history are instrumental, perhaps even causal, in bringing about great change, but in this case I tend to think that if it hadn't been Julius it would have been someone else.

[spittle]

The Julii claimed claimed their name was derived from 'Iulus', the son of Aeneas, the leader of the Trojan exiles who had settled in Rome after the fall of Troy. Aeneas himself was the son of the human Anchises and the goddess Venus.

 

So they actually did claim devine ancestry but from Venus, not Mars.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Getting back to the original question...

 

I think posters are correct that the "What if Caesar had lost?" question depends very much on WHO defeated Caesar and WHO--among the Caesarians--were left behind.

 

Had Pompey defeated Caesar and killed him in battle, there could have remained a number of Caesarian partisans around, including even Antony. It doesn't seem difficult to imagine Antony goading Pompey into further civil strife, and Pompey--always looking for unprecedented honors--could have easily turned his back on the party of Cato. Indeed, a Pompey-Antony alliance isn't impossible to fathom.

 

Had Pompey lost to Caesar and Caesar been defeated by locals in Egypt (which almost happened), the civil war would almost certainly have continued between the remnants of Caesar's army and the remaining forces of the republic. Antony was a capable commander and might have defeated Scipio. Under this scenario, Antony could have quickly proven himself another Cinna.

 

Had Scipio defeated the last of the Caesarians, the situation in Rome would have been wide open to opportunists, to reformers, and to patriots. Rome's greatest and most powerful generals would be dead, and Rome would probably have found herself facing foreign, local threats around the empire--in Spain, in Gaul, in Asia, and in Africa. In short, there would probably have been so much work to do that the competition among aristocrats would have been re-focused on its traditional task of maintaining Rome's far flung territories and allies.

 

In any case, that's my best guess: removing Caesar would have given Rome an opportunity, but as many opportunities are squandered as are taken.

[Primus Pilus]

I split the theory of various scholars discussion as it was rapidly devolving from the the topic at hand.