Caesar dies at Alesia

[Faeelin]

The year, dear readers, is 52 BC. Caesar's army is besieging the gauls under Vercingetorix at Alesia, and the fate of Gaul hangs in the balance. The Gauls dispatch an army to relieve Verceingetorix, and casualties are heavy.

It is then, alas, that Caesar dies, the sword of a Gaul slicing through his body. Roman casualties are heavy, with legionary standards being captured. Bad things happen to Rome's remaining Celtic allies, of course, and all of Gaul north of Narbonessis is "free".

What happens in Rome? In Gaul?

[Alayta]

intresting. In my eyes, the theft of standards would encourage a war against the gauls. The decisions made to raise enough troops for doing so coul probably delay the end of the republic for some decades. And what will come after the republic is difficult to guess. the big-man concept probably ended with ceasars death?

[fortyseven]

Pompey is another Marius and the Republic lasts longer. Hard to say more.

[Yossarian]

Maybe Pompey proclaims Caesar to be a martyr and leads the forces of the republic to conquer Gaul. I wonder what the consequences of a longer lasting republic would be. Maybe if the people still had some say in the government rome would never start its decline. This is because the decline was mostly caused by the incredibly extravagant super-rich who controlled everything and caused the decline of loyalty and values in rome.

[fortyseven]

I dont think there's just that one reason Yossarian.

[Prunesquallor]

The stuff about "super rich" and "the decline in values" is merely the cry of the old farts throughout the ages. If I had to look for a root cause for Rome's problems I would suggest the difficulty of managing an empire with a political system designed for an age when all citizens lived a day or two's walk from Rome.

Theft of standards encouraging a war against the Gauls. No, this is reading later attitudes into an earlier period, the days of the empire when Rome had a standing army. At this point the legionary eagle was less than half a century old, a Marian innovation.

A crusade under Pompey to avenge Caesar. Unlikely. Pompey seems to have lost his appetite for campaigns and big commands. Besides, the hard line conservatives would have blocked any such move as giving too much power. They would probably have claimed that Caesar's death was a sign of divine displeasure at aggressive war and oath breaking (cf Capito's consignment of Crassus's army to the Infernal Gods for an unprovoked attack on Parthia) and that Caesar's conquests be written off and Rome withdraw back to her preCaesarian holdings in Gaul.

Most likely result- Rome limps on. Disorder in Rome, occasional sole consulships to restore order. Sooner or later, in Jugurtha's words, " a city for sale and destined to ruin if a buyer turns up."

[Kurt_Steiner]

Would, then, this defeat at Alessia become a new Teutoburgerwald? would Gaul be forbidden for the Legions?

[Prunesquallor]

Probably not. I suspect that sooner or later an expansionist Rome would move further into Gaul, whether to protect the northern frontiers or to further some commander's ambition. The difference is the Romans could see the advantages of taking Gaul, while it was doubtful whether the military cost of expansion to the Elbe was worth it.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Prunesquallor

Probably not. I suspect that sooner or later an expansionist Rome would move further into Gaul, whether to protect the northern frontiers or to further some commander's ambition. The difference is the Romans could see the advantages of taking Gaul, while it was doubtful whether the military cost of expansion to the Elbe was worth it.

Why so?

I'm also not sure why the Republic has suddenly became more viable, just because Caesar's dead. A lot of the rot that was there still is.

[Prunesquallor]

Actually, that's what I just said. The Republic was a Norwegian Blue. Sooner or later the buyer would turn up. The economic and strategic advantages of taking Gaul were obvious, that of moving up to the Elbe far less so. We've gone through this before.

[bill_bruno]

It's hard to imagine a Gallic army flushed with success stopping at Alesia. I see part of that army (most of it goes home), marching down the Rhone into Transalpine Gaul. Vercengetorix had to do a scorched-earth policy so I could see a big raid south for payback and to get food and plunder.

As I recall, Massilia had been the target of Gallic attacks and it's easy to imagine a victorious army wanting to have another go at it. At the very least, Pompey would have to deal with that. On the other hand, once the Romans fended them off, you aren't likely to see an attempt to conquer Gaul as there had been a Parthian invasion of Syria in 51 B.C.

Who would succeed Caesar as leader of the populares?

[Prunesquallor]

I suspect a victorious Gallic army would have broken up after Alesia. As for Vercingetorix, look at what happened to Arminius. Even for highly organised armies (which the Gauls weren't), sieges were major undertakings in ancient times. Massilia's safe, especially since it can be supplied and reinforced by sea.

But Caesar wasn't the leader of the "populares". That's shoving our own party system into the past.

[Hansmeister]

The Roman Republic tended to react to such disaster with renewed vigour. The Senate would have probably raised another army to ensure the defeat of the Gauls. I don't think Rome would have left such a defeat unaswered, it would have threatened their hegemony in the ancient world to be not thought of as invincible.

As to who would lead this Army? If not Pompey, who knows? Pompey, who wasn't as interested in campaigning anymore at that time might have undertaken the task if flattered enough, or to prove that he can succeed where Ceasar failed, or to prevent somebody else to claim the glory.

[Prunesquallor]

No. The classic answer to Pyrrhus and Hannibal had been that "Rome will not discuss terms of peace with a foreign enemy on Italian soil." On Italian soil. There had been no clamour to avenge Crassus. Indeed, some thought he deserved what he got for starting an unprovoked war. As he left Rome, the tribune Ateius had consigned Crassus and his army to the infernal gods for this act of aggression, a curse which could not be used for political ends since it was believed to be of such potency that it destroyed the caster as well as the victim.

The ultras in the Senate had claimed that Caesar had been fighting an unjustified war from the very beginning and had even demanded he be handed over to the Gauls for it. They're pleased to see Caesar dead and will portray it as the justice of the Gods. They're against any big commands which give too much power to one man. For now, Gaul will be left alone.

[bill_bruno]

Originally Posted by Prunesquallor

But Caesar wasn't the leader of the "populares". That's shoving our own party system into the past.

I don't assume that the Optimate-Populare system was equivalent to our own party system. However, there were two distinguishable political modii operandii. From Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero, pp. 7

"The real difference lay, not in class nor even in the programmes that they proclaimed, but in the methods that they followed. Many of the Populares sought a personal predominance, while in contrast the Optimates tried to uphold the oligarchy that they controlled...Many [of the Populares] wooed the Populus as a means rather than an end, their objective being to break the dominant oligarchy..."

Essentially, Populares sought to gain power by exploiting tension between the Senate vs. the Populus and Equities. OTL, Caesar's victory in Gaul led to Pompey working with the Optimates (i.e., Brutus and Cato the Younger). I suppose that the death of Caesar in Gaul might forestall that, so you could see tension between Pompey (who becomes the leading practioner of populare methods) against Optimate Senators.

Originally Posted by Prunesquallor

I suspect a victorious Gallic army would have broken up after Alesia. As for Vercingetorix, look at what happened to Arminius. Even for highly organised armies (which the Gauls weren't), sieges were major undertakings in ancient times. Massilia's safe, especially since it can be supplied and reinforced by sea.

I stated that most of it would've gone home, but it's hard to believe that some members of a victorious Gallic army wouldn't have taken the trouble to raid into Gallia Narbonensis, and that that wouldn't have necessitated a Roman response, with defensive goals only.

[Prunesquallor]

Yes, but it was very fluid. Scullard also remarks: "...the effective management of the State rested in the hands of some twenty or less families: they supplied the men who commanded the armies, governed the provinces, and by guiding senatorial policy shaped the destinies of Rome and the world." We have an oligarchy here whose members are competing for place and prestige, who will use whatever tactic they feel advantageous. Cato was against corrupting the Roman people etc etc ad nauseam, but when it was useful handed out cheap corn. I forget whether it was six or eight times Michael Grant suggests Pompey changed sides. Look at the careers of Catiline or Curio. Or look at Brutus (whom I've always considered a thorough going prick.) His father backs the attempts of Lepidus, the former Sullan, to overthrow the Sullan settlement and is executed (breaking his word) by Pompey. His mother is Caesar's mistress but Cato is his uncle. He sides with Pompey in the civil war, deserts him after Pharsalus, accepts office under Caesar, then stabs him (literally) in the back. Pompey has everything he wants. He's the leading man in Rome. His career has shown that he's not prepared to go the final step. He's no longer interested in great commands. He has no reason to rock the boat.

No doubt there would be some raids into Southern Gaul, but nothing that would justify a massive campaign.