Crassus in the Roman Civil War

This is a question that has bugged me quite often. In OTL, Marcus Crassus died assaulting the Parthians (didn't do a very good job of it, either). What if this hadn't happened?

My question here is simple; what side would Crassus have taken in the civil war between Caesar and Pompey?

Whichever side he joins may find him to be more of a liability than an asset. As a comander he really was quite foolish. In the Parthinian expedition he had Armenian allies who wished to take an alternate route through the Armenian mountains. But instead he decided to ditch his allies in order to march across the middle of the dessert. The expedition to Partia need not of been so suicidal if it was not for Crasus' hubris.

A lot depends on the nature of Crassus's survival. Did he fight and win a successful Parthian campaign, did he meet with significant reverses but escape with his life? Or did he just decide to rein in his ambition and not march east?

If the first, then we may have to assume a more capable Crassus (or just one willing to face the facts on the ground). He will find himself in an enhanced position in roman politics. If scenario two, a lot of his influence will be lost. he may survive politically with the backing of the other triumvirs, maybe even hold onto his eastern provinces, but he is clearly a diminished partner, and will be looking east for vengence, especially if his son dies as in history (not to say he wouldnt intervene, but he will be weaker than his partners). If the third, then we probably have a much cannier Crassus, with less military acumen than his fellow triumvirs (although he might realize this) but a strong base of operations, and is richer than his fellows. Especially if his ambition remains uncurbed, we might somehow wind up with a three-way civil war (hard to manage, but Crassus surviving is a pretty major POD, after all).

If Crassius stays in Rome :

1. Would he have supported the Senate in going after Ceasar ?
2. Would Pompei have not supported the Senate drive to outlaw Ceasar

If so can the triemverte be back in place

I get the impression that Crassus would have been pretty clearly on the Optimate side, which puts him on Pompey's side. Either way, his role would be rather small in the grand scheme of things, since both of the other triumvirs were already very wealthy by the time of Crassus's death, and he was militarily irrelevant compared to two of the greatest Roman generals of the time.

I say he'd have supported Caesar. Crassus had been an ally of Caesar's for some time, and had solved some of Caesar's financial problems in his earlier career. Plus, Crassus had some personal animosity toward Pompey and many of the boni.

Atreus said:

With less military acumen than his fellow triumvirs (although he might realize this) but a strong base of operations, and is richer than his fellows. Especially if his ambition remains uncurbed, we might somehow wind up with a three-way civil war (hard to manage, but Crassus surviving is a pretty major POD, after all).

Click to expand...

He would have the advantage of being based in Syria and thus able to call upon Roman clients in the East. In contrast Caesar is limited to his Gallic legions and Pompey what he could raise in Italy and Spain. Whilst he is no Vespasian he could certainly put large numbers of troops in the field and thus put up a lot of resistance. Then again Pompey got defeated in spite of his Eastern allies.

One factor could push events in Crassus's favour: recruitment of Mark Antony who was not a bad general. Given that Mark Antony a) did not join Caesar until 54BC, ie after Crassus's death on OTL and b) was heavily in debt Crassus could easily buy the lad by paying off his creditors. It would certainly sharpen his game as well as weakening Caesar a little.

While Crassus is famed for his wealth by the period of the civil war Caesar is much richer than him. While Crassus was a canny business man Caesar had sold Gaul into slavery his will was worth 50,000 talents an astronomical amount. He would not have come down on the side of the boni and was in fact a populares, remember he was a business man (despite his high birth) not a landed aristocrat, his power base was in the Ordo Equester. He would have allied with Caesar against Pompey and the boni and may have 'saved' the Republic as their partnership would have been much more equal.

Crassus was not a poor commander on the field. He is the one who made thé decision at the Colline Gate battle in late 82 BCE. He also won the "war" against the insurgent slaves led by Spartacus. He just chose a disastrous strategy in his parthian campaign.

In the mid 50's, Crassus was still about as rich as Caesar.

And politically speaking, Crassus was a sullan who played the part of a popularis when it was his interest. But he remained very deeply connected with the bluest blooded roman nobility : his first son was marries to a Cornelia Scipionis (the daughter of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, who would remarry with Pompey in 52), and his second son was married to a Caecilia Metella.

If Crassus had not died in à disaster such as Carrhae and could have returned to Rome claiming a decent victory (meaning he was not crushed and brought back most of his army), then he would have remained a dominant figure of the republic. And so, there would have been no civil war because Crassus would have played the balance in order to prevent any of his two other two partners becoming too dominant. That's what he already did in 57/56 when Pompey, after Caesar's stunning victories in Gaul, tried to gain à specific and dominant position. This strategy was quite efficient since it drove to the renewal and reinforcement of the triumvirate in the "agreements/conference" of Lucca in 56.

Matteo said:

Crassus was not a poor commander on the field. He is the one who made thé decision at the Colline Gate battle in late 82 BCE. He also won the "war" against the insurgent slaves led by Spartacus. He just chose a disastrous strategy in his parthian campaign.

Click to expand...

Matteo said:

If Crassus had not died in à disaster such as Carrhae and could have returned to Rome claiming a decent victory (meaning he was not crushed and brought back most of his army), then he would have remained a dominant figure of the republic.

Click to expand...

Victory over the Parthians would qualified him for a triumph, an honour that he did receive for defeating a horde of slaves.

In fact, for defeating the slaves he received but an avotion. Slaves were not opponents worthy enough to deserve a triumph.

As far as Crassus' parthian campaign, what I was refering to is the possibility of a no victory/no disaster outcome, quite like what happened for Anthony. Crassus would have asked for a triumph but there would have been strong opposition in the Senate.