What If?

[Primus Pilus]

As the Roman History section of the site is just now getting into Caesar (the first of many pages mind you), I thought it might be a decent idea to discuss some what if possibilites....

 

What if Sulla proscribed Caesar? It's well known that Sulla had the young patrician on his lists, but was talked out of it by various friends and family. How would the Roman world, and the future of Europe had changed if Caesar was killed as a young man? Would someone have taken his place, would the Republic have survived, would Rome have fell completely?

[pompeius magnus]

The results of that horror would be too numerous and cataclamic to list. The what if question, even on the smallest of events, would change today in one way or another. A change such as that would change almost everything about the way we live today. There would be no month of July or August, Augustus doesn't become first emperor. An even more intersting fact is there is a good chance that Christianity doesn't find its way up to northern europe for a long time, if at all, as no Caesar means no conquest of Gaul. There are just a few changes, not too mention the difference in the calander.

[Ursus]

No Caesar, and then no Augustus.

 

I think another warlord would probably have taken over the government, perhaps even Pompei. But could that hypothetical warlord have tamed the Gauls like Caesar, or inspired a rebirth of culture and peace like Augustus?

 

Don't know. But I shudder to think what the Empire would have been like if a less capable individual were presiding over it in its infancy.

[Viggen]

Interesting question;

 

I assume the British Isle would have never been under Roman Rule, there would have been no Varus Disaster either then..

 

maybe the Roman Empire would have focussed more on the eastern expansion...

[Crag]

I know it's heresay but in hindsight Caesar may have been a military genius but politically he left alot to be desired...

 

alienation of the senate

resented by the patrician class

Eygptian scandal

 

Augustus showed at that time political aptitude was much more valuable

 

Given the roman aggression of the state and obsession for conquest to secure positions within it.

 

Well Caesar military skill is a loss given the ruthless legions of rome it is almost certain another general would have undertaken the conquest of Gaul and due to the sickness of the republic and the consolidation of power in fewer hands the overthrow of the state also seems very likely by several contemporary candidates.

[Incitatus]

I believe Rome would never be the same. The Empire would never come about because no family could ever become supreme head of rome.

[Spurius]

Some of the areas of interest in this "What if..." (at least as far as for me):

 

1) Would Rome and its rulers have gone much farther into northern europe and Gaul, or would they settle for barbarian tribal states in constant turmoil?

 

2) Without the drive to conquer Gaul or beyond, would Rome cast its greedy eye east and force more land/ client kingdoms from the Parthians?

 

3) Would Rome have finally exhausted its martial power early (with more civil wars) and become more "eastern" with more emphasis on decadence and personal gain by the elite for only themselves instead for the state and themselves?

 

How is Caesar involved in these? Here we go....

 

1) Caesar's need for conquest and glory put Rome farther into europe than it would have naturally gone...at that point. I imagine that Rome's paranoia about the Celts would have eventually drove them to subdue or payoff the Gauls. I don't envision Gaul NOT being romanized, just a matter of time. In any event, Rome's hand would probably have been weaker when the big migrations started.

 

2) The Republic was extrordinarily money hungry. The Empire did need money, but it was more efficent in its use (thanks to Augustus) than the Republic. Money for elections, money for shows, money for taxes, money for trade (much better than commodities), the list goes on. The East had riches and tax farming was raised to a fine art by the Romans. Caesar was going to go east, but got cut short.

 

With the chain of events leading to empire delayed, perhaps Rome would not have gone very deep into the Levant. The military expenditures would have been cost prohibitive and the roman economy may have suffered more devastating cyles of recession and negative growth. Or maybe even more of their military would have been concentrated there, leaving more vulnerability in europe and the various people migrations.

 

3) This is more of a philosophical view. Caesar lead to Augustus and his strengthening of "family values" in Roman society. Even though the emperor's courtiers got very decadent, there was enough of a service and honor mentality to hold the Empire together longer than any loyalty to the Republic would have. Granted that Rome would have remained the military power of europe during that time, I think that without Caesar and empire (even a delayed empire) the rich would have gone off the deep end and acted very much like the Etruscans.

 

All of this is IMHO and speculative. It may fall apart like a house of cards...but that's what discussions are for

[Perseverantius]

Complete take over of the government by Catiline due to the absence of Caesarian support for Cicero.

 

Pompei would have marched on Rome and been declared consul for life and instead of Caesars we'd be discussing Magnuses.

[Germanicus]

Complete take over of the government by Catiline due to the absence of Caesarian support for Cicero.

 

I doubt there was actually much of a threat involved in the Cataline conspiracy, it was a beat up by sycophant Cicero wanting to be the "Saviour of his country" . He also got what he wanted without Caesar, Caesar in fact came very close to being implicated as a partner in the conspiracy, and was one of the only voices in the senate to suggest exile rather than death without trial as their punishment.

 

I agree with Ursus that another Warlord would have eventually marched on Rome, Sulla set the precedent, and those Romans always had to go one better than the ancestors, the same can be said for the conquest of Gaul too. I think Pompey possibly as he would have turned out a different player with no Caesar to compete with him, but who knows, not many would have been able to do it as fast as Caesar - it was a real blitzkrieg.

 

I would be really curious to see what Octavian made of himself anyway...without Caesar. He was always ambitious, he may not have reached the heights he did, but almost certainly would have gotten somewhere.