AH Challenge:Pompey the Great

Rocano

Banned
What if Pompey had defeated Caesar? Would Pompey declare himself Dictator or even King? Can you find a POD
 

maverick

Banned
"What if Pompey had defeated Caesar?"

"Can you find a POD?"

Other than Pharsalus? or within the battle?
In the battle: if Labienus's Cavalry had crushed Caesar's fourth line of Infantry instead of crumbling and retreating like a bunch of pansies...

Other than the battle: if Caesar had died at the battle of Dyrrachium...

We could also have Pompey forming an army before the war and attacking Caesar pre-emptively at the Rubicon...

Now, the aftermath is tricky, depending on the POD and if people like Mark Anthony and the other popular generals and leaders of the Populae party that followed Caesar would be popular or strong enough to have a say in the division of Rome even if Julius Caesar is dead.

As for Pompey, I assume that he would either continue as Consul or dictator, depending on the political situation and his popularity...either dictator for life, or dictator for a short while then retiring as Governor of Hispania, which could become a de facto hereditary fief for his family...interestingly, the Pompey Family could dominate Roman politics for the following generation or two...
 
Pompey would have demanded - and recieved - a Triumph for defeating the out-lawed Caesar. He would have been lauded as a hero, with statues dedicated to him in the Forum. But he wouldn't have desired dictatorship - he'd had his fill of that, and didn't paticularily enjoy being in charge - he was administrative (civily and militarily) minded, not politically. If he was put in charge of reorganizing the public works of Rome, or some such, he would have been much happier. He was also much older than Julius at the time, and his drive was lessened.

Cicero would have led the Senate back to the forefront of the Republic and re-established the constitution - perhaps through many of the same compromises made with the Caesarion factions after OTL death of Julius. Cicero would have pushed for much to stop the fighting and restore the Republic.

Antony would be bought of with a governership, perhaps in Gaul or the East. But he wasn't a good administrator, and didn't have a talent for government. As long as his comforts were met and he had some influence in affairs, he would have laid down his arms.

And Octavian would never be the political heir to Julius, even if he was the financial heir (not sure when Julius put him in his will, but he would have been an adolescent at the time, so he would have no influence). Without him to take up the mantle of Julius' leadership of the Populares, the Republic and the Optimates would have been restored (it was a near thing in OTL).

How long the Republic would continue is another thing - it was becoming very instable, and the determined short-sightedness of the Optimates Senators was damaging for the long-term survival. Whether another Juluis would rise with the charisma and talent to take control of the Roman government and military machine is unlikely - he was rather singular, and the SPQR would be even more regiphobic after him. I would see more civil wars in the decades to come, with generals carving out territories for themselves out of Rome's holdings, rather than marching on the capital itself to wrest ultimate control - Julius' example being a deterrent. So a break-up of the nascent Empire a la post-Alexander's Macedonian Empire...
 

HueyLong

Banned
I remember reading that he did not like his children. Don't remember where, probably something for my Latin class.....
 
So, we have Pompey beating Caesar?

I think the best POD has already been mentioned, Pompey giving battle before Caesar reaches Rome. Pompey's biggest mistake in the campaign was that he fled Rome. When he ceded Rome to Caesar, he also ceded Caesar political legitmacy and allowed his Roman base to be destroyed.

So Pompey beats Casear and his rebel army, Caesar is killed in the battle, his most prominent supporters are bought off. This solves the immediate problem of civil war, and ends Caesar's career, but the ongoing struggle between the Populists and the Elitests is going to continue.

A more equal society is what is ultimately needed, and as long as this was not granted then the power-hungry politicans like Julius and Octavian were going to continue to show up on the scene.

I think that Mark Antony would be probably be best placed (that is for Pompey's long-term health) in the West. If he is placed in the East, then the temptation to attack Parthia would be too great.

In fact, if Caesar is killed and that branch of Roman history is aborted, then the continuing territorial expansion of the Roman Republic is in the cards. The Empire's borders expanded only a little beyond the Republic's borders, because the Republic had a procession of power-hungry politicans who sought the wealth they needed for Roman politics in wars of conquest (e.g. Pompey and Caesar). Without the (relative) stability that the switch to the Imperial system of Octavian brought then this cycle of Imperial expansion continues. And I think that the next major target will be Parthia. Perhaps we see Antony make an alliance with Cleopatra in the East, in order to fund his expedition into Parthia. Octavian becomes the real brains behind the operation and he reaps the political rewards when they conquer Parthia to the Zagros Mts.

The next round of civil wars is Octavian vs. Pompey's successors.
 
The next round of civil wars is Octavian vs. Pompey's successors.

Octavian was 14 when Pharsalus happend, and Dyrrachium was one year later. He would have no legitimacy at that age, even if he was in Julius' will, which is unknown. Being named Julius' heir in 44 BC was a surprise, even to him.

If Caesar dies earlier, then Octavian as we know him does not happen. At best he climbs the political ranks like everyone else and becomes consul in his 40's. That is, if Pompey lets him live - he wasn't known for the clemency Julius was famous for.
 
Antony would be bought of with a governership, perhaps in Gaul or the East. But he wasn't a good administrator, and didn't have a talent for government. As long as his comforts were met and he had some influence in affairs, he would have laid down his arms.

Sort of like when he and Octavian split the empire? Cause when that happened they had themselves a civil war. Antony might not be a great strategic thinker, but was ambitious, and he was a great soldier. I think that if he lives then he would continue the civil war, or have a very high asking price for the peace. That asking price would probably include the subject of my next comment . . .

And Octavian would never be the political heir to Julius, even if he was the financial heir (not sure when Julius put him in his will, but he would have been an adolescent at the time, so he would have no influence). Without him to take up the mantle of Julius' leadership of the Populares, the Republic and the Optimates would have been restored (it was a near thing in OTL).

Restored in the sense of . . . what? Julius Caesar has not won the civil war yet and started shaking the social order up, he is just the most successful member of the first triumverate. And now in this ATL he is a dead rebel. Or a Martyr of the Populares cause, depending on which political faction you ask in Rome. What would restoration look like? Because the status quo hadn't been officially changed, i.e. Caesar's reforms hadn't been enacted.

If Octavian lives, then he would become a rallying point for the Populares. He is Caesar's heir. Caesar was the heir (as in last surviving male relative) of one of the two main protaginists in Rome's last major round of civil wars prior to Caesar vs. Pompey. So Octavian may not be an adult, but neither is he unimportant. If he is protected by Caesar's commanders after their defeat as a part of a peace agreement then he is the natural leader of the Populares.

How long the Republic would continue is another thing - it was becoming very instable, and the determined short-sightedness of the Optimates Senators was damaging for the long-term survival. Whether another Juluis would rise with the charisma and talent to take control of the Roman government and military machine is unlikely - he was rather singular, and the SPQR would be even more regiphobic after him. I would see more civil wars in the decades to come, with generals carving out territories for themselves out of Rome's holdings, rather than marching on the capital itself to wrest ultimate control - Julius' example being a deterrent. So a break-up of the nascent Empire a la post-Alexander's Macedonian Empire...

Alexander Empire's was built in a few years by one man and one army. Rome's empire was built over generations by many men and many armies. Alexander's Empire had no source of political legitmacy. The ROMAN Republic had a clear center of political power and legitimacy in a system of laws and traditions and the city of Rome that bound not only the Republic, but for generations the Empire as well.

Julius was not unique. In the generation prior to his one of his relatives and another man battled for control of Rome. The difference between Julius and that guy was that he was an Opitimates supporter and so enacted none of the radical reforms that Julius did. The reality was that the Roman Republic badly needed serious reform to continue to function. That serious reform was provided by Octavian Caesar in his introduction of the Imperial system in OTL. With Caesar dead, then the opportunities are presenting for holding off the imposition of some kind of Imperial system, and obviously there would be many changes to how that system operated. By at base the change from Republic to Empire is something that is much easier to see in history books than it probably was to the average Roman citizen. The forms of the Republic was kept, and their power remained in the minds of Roman citizens and Roman soldiers for generations.

The turnover to complete absolute Imperial power was never accomplished under the United Empire, and only came about with the Byzantines and the idea of Basilauses (sp) which itself was a Hellenized version of the Persian's King of Kings.
 
Last edited:
Sort of like when he and Octavian split the empire? Cause when that happened they had themselves a civil war. Antony might not be a great strategic thinker, but was ambitious, and he was a great soldier. I think that if he lives then he would continue the civil war, or have a very high asking price for the peace. That asking price would probably include the subject of my next comment . . .
But as you say below, Julius hadn't yet become dictator, setting the precedence for Antony to try to emulate. Granted he was one of the two most powerful men in the realm, but the Republic rose up and smacked him down when he tried to become preeminent. That would be a powerful dissuader for anyone else. I think Antony would stay within the Republican constitution and manuever himself into a consluship once or twice, governerships of some rich provinces. I think you're under-estimating the Regi-phobia of the Republic, and how extraordinary it was for J. Caesar to become defacto King, even if he turned down the de jure title.
Restored in the sense of . . . what?
In the sense that it isn't a trio or duo of men that decides on the political agenda and dictates the actions of the government. It returns to annually elected Consuls, Praetors, etc. that provide the checks and balances of the Republic, alternating leadership through peaceful transitions (for the most part).
Or a Martyr of the Populares cause, depending on which political faction you ask in Rome. What would restoration look like? Because the status quo hadn't been officially changed, i.e. Caesar's reforms hadn't been enacted.
But the Triumvirate had changed the nature of power in the republic, removing the popular voice of the people and Senate and replaced it with consensual rule between three then two men. Return to pre-Triumvirate days.
If Octavian lives, then he would become a rallying point for the Populares. He is Caesar's heir.
That is not known at this time. He was a member of the Julian clan, yes, but whether he is named in J Caesar's will at this early time is a mystery. Even if he was, no one will listen to him directly as he was not yet a man; though they may use him as a symbol of the Populares cause, but it will be (even more than it was in OTL following Caesar's death) riven by conflicting interests that all want to advance their own agenda. I simply do not buy a 14 year-old Octavian being an effective political force. And if he still becomes the youngest ever consul at 19 as in OTL, 5 years will have passed of functioning Republicism, and the momentum towards the level of Augustus will have been dissipated
Caesar was the heir (as in last surviving male relative) of one of the two main protaginists in Rome's last major round of civil wars prior to Caesar vs. Pompey. So Octavian may not be an adult, but neither is he unimportant. If he is protected by Caesar's commanders after their defeat as a part of a peace agreement then he is the natural leader of the Populares.
Caesar was also a lot older and fully adult when he entered politics - entered at the bottom and worked his way up, not entered as a boy at the top of the political ladder

Alexander Empire's was built in a few years by one man and one army. Rome's empire was built over generations by many men and many armies. Alexander's Empire had no source of political legitmacy. The ROMAN Republic had a clear center of political power and legitimacy in a system of laws and traditions and the city of Rome that bound not only the Republic, but for generations the Empire as well.
And those laws and traditions would probably continue, but it is a fact that the Republic's territories were reaching the limit of effective centralized control, and if the centralized control can't be changed through Julius' and Octavian's reforms, then the peripheral regions will start self-governing, whether or not the centre likes it.
Julius was not unique. In the generation prior to his one of his relatives and another man battled for control of Rome. The difference between Julius and that guy was that he was an Opitimates supporter and so enacted none of the radical reforms that Julius did. The reality was that the Roman Republic badly needed serious reform to continue to function. That serious reform was provided by Octavian Caesar in his introduction of the Imperial system in OTL. With Caesar dead, then the opportunities are presenting for holding off the imposition of some kind of Imperial system, and obviously there would be many changes to how that system operated. By at base the change from Republic to Empire is something that is much easier to see in history books than it probably was to the average Roman citizen. The forms of the Republic was kept, and their power remained in the minds of Roman citizens and Roman soldiers for generations.

The turnover to complete absolute Imperial power was never accomplished under the United Empire, and only came about with the Byzantines and the idea of Basilauses (sp) which itself was a Hellenized version of the Persian's King of Kings.
I'm not sure how these last comments don't support a continuing but splintering Republic... absolutely reforms were needed, but reforms were going to need to be imposed since the entrenched power-holders (Senate) weren't going to make the changes themselves. Without a Caesar figure (not unique, but certainly Extraordinary. Sulla fought his Civil War a generation earlier, but did it for his own glory. Caesar wanted his share of glory, but also wanted to make Roman government work better, even if it meant repudiating parts of the constitution) to impose the needed changes, the Senate would continue to function disfunctionally, while the Republic slowly fell apart around them. For instance, Gaul was a recent aquisition, and so it's reversion to the tribes would be seen as natural. Greece and Macedonia were rich and powerful in their own right, and would start pulling away from Rome simply for administrative reasons, followed by political ones. So too with southern Spain, perhaps, and North Africa. Egypt would remain a seperate kingdom and act as it's own centre of politcal gravity.

There may remain a common 'Romaness' to it all, but I think it would be much looser and prone to sporadic break-ups. Not as quick as Alexander's, but similar result with many parts with one common heritage.
 
But as you say below, Julius hadn't yet become dictator, setting the precedence for Antony to try to emulate. Granted he was one of the two most powerful men in the realm, but the Republic rose up and smacked him down when he tried to become preeminent. That would be a powerful dissuader for anyone else.

You need to read your Roman history my friend. There were quite a number of attempts at changing the Republic via violence, e.g. Catiline's conspiracy. The Republic was also at time upheld by violence, for instance the killing of the Grachi brothers.

Without reform the underlying reasons that Rome was unstable would remain. This underlying instability had caused many men over a few generations to kill and risk death. That Caesar was stopped would not dissuade ambitious men in the future.

I think Antony would stay within the Republican constitution and manuever himself into a consluship once or twice, governerships of some rich provinces. I think you're under-estimating the Regi-phobia of the Republic, and how extraordinary it was for J. Caesar to become defacto King, even if he turned down the de jure title.

Antony had already gone outside the constitution, as he joined Caesar before he crossed the Rubicon. If Caesar loses I think Pompey will make sure the political slate is wiped clean, and proscribe Caesar's supporters. If that doesn't happen and peace is made with Caesar's supporters, then Pompey risks the same scenario of a victorious army marching on Rome.

He didn't become de facto King. He was one of three men who had managed to control the affairs of the Republic, but it was an informal, albeit effective, control. There wouldn't be any rex-phobia, since this isn't a new thing for Rome, political rivals settling their disputes via civil war.

In the sense that it isn't a trio or duo of men that decides on the political agenda and dictates the actions of the government. It returns to annually elected Consuls, Praetors, etc. that provide the checks and balances of the Republic, alternating leadership through peaceful transitions (for the most part). But the Triumvirate had changed the nature of power in the republic, removing the popular voice of the people and Senate and replaced it with consensual rule between three then two men. Return to pre-Triumvirate days.

If Pompey wins we are assuming, then I think that he will try and wipe out Caesar's supporters through the most favored means of Roman civil war combatants who are declared dictator, the proscription. Furthermore, his win would consolidate his power, thus instead of Julius we have Pompey. Now he would not enact the broad reforms that Caesar did, but neither would he return Roman politics to its pre-triumeverate state of populares-optimates conflict. After all, one of the perks of winning is that he gets to legally kill a lot of people who don't agree with him.

That is not known at this time. He was a member of the Julian clan, yes, but whether he is named in J Caesar's will at this early time is a mystery. Even if he was, no one will listen to him directly as he was not yet a man; though they may use him as a symbol of the Populares cause, but it will be (even more than it was in OTL following Caesar's death) riven by conflicting interests that all want to advance their own agenda.

That is the beauty of symbols. They bring people together. But I don't think that Octavian would live if Pompey can get his hands on him. He is far too potent of a symbol. Plus he was smart as a whip and very ambitious, so if he does live then he will be an enormous threat in a very short amount of time.

I simply do not buy a 14 year-old Octavian being an effective political force. And if he still becomes the youngest ever consul at 19 as in OTL, 5 years will have passed of functioning Republicism, and the momentum towards the level of Augustus will have been dissipated. Caesar was also a lot older and fully adult when he entered politics - entered at the bottom and worked his way up, not entered as a boy at the top of the political ladder

Octavian entered the political ladder in OTL as a boy. He worked for his uncle, Caesar, as an aide during the civil war and then upon Caesar's assassination became one of the main leaders of the pro-Caesar faction due to his position as Caesar's adopted son.

And those laws and traditions would probably continue, but it is a fact that the Republic's territories were reaching the limit of effective centralized control, and if the centralized control can't be changed through Julius' and Octavian's reforms, then the peripheral regions will start self-governing, whether or not the centre likes it.

I don't agree that the Republic had reached the limit of control. I think that the Republic probably could have extended control East to the Zagros Mountains, and set up client states on the Iranian Plateau. The problem with your theory that perpherial regions would begin self-governing is that it is not backed up by an evidence that such a trend was occuring OTL. Caesar and Octavian's rule and reforms did not centralize political power in Rome, the Republic had already done that. Instead what their reforms did was to create order within that centralized arena, that is, Rome. This centralization of control had the side-effect of ending the process of territorial expansion by ambitious governors, because the reason for that territorial expansion, getting revenue with which to fuel a political career, disappeared with the imposition of the Imperial system, and the side-lining of electoral politics that accompanied it.

I'm not sure how these last comments don't support a continuing but splintering Republic... absolutely reforms were needed, but reforms were going to need to be imposed since the entrenched power-holders (Senate) weren't going to make the changes themselves.

Being a little harsh on the Senate aren't we? The major players on both sides of the Optimates-Populares split were Senatorial aristocracy.

Without a Caesar figure (not unique, but certainly Extraordinary). Sulla fought his Civil War a generation earlier, but did it for his own glory. Caesar wanted his share of glory, but also wanted to make Roman government work better, even if it meant repudiating parts of the constitution) to impose the needed changes, the Senate would continue to function disfunctionally, while the Republic slowly fell apart around them.

Sulla was essentially the same kind of man as Caesar, the difference was that his political ambitions were different. He thought the system was alright, and so did little to change it. Caesar thought the system was broken, and so acted to change it. Caesar then represented a far greater threat to the status quo of the Republic then Sulla did, thus causing the split in how their careers ended. That another Caesar would arise (Octavian for instance) or even another different person entirely.

For instance, Gaul was a recent aquisition, and so it's reversion to the tribes would be seen as natural. Greece and Macedonia were rich and powerful in their own right, and would start pulling away from Rome simply for administrative reasons, followed by political ones. So too with southern Spain, perhaps, and North Africa. Egypt would remain a seperate kingdom and act as it's own centre of politcal gravity.

Gaul was not capable of independence at the point in time in which we are talking. Caesar's invasion would best be described as a demographic catastrophe for residents of Gaul. Plutarch said that 3 million men fought the Romans. Of these 1 million died, 1 million were enslaved, and 1 million lived. If you were a member of the remaining 1 million your desire to fight the kind of military machine that Rome had proven itself would be just about zero. There are good reasons that Gaul did not rise during either the Caesar-Pompey or the Octavian-Antony, or indeed any of the other numerous Roman, Civil Wars. Caesar killed enough of them to convince them to be good Roman subjects.

As for the other places I would point to the same sort of thing. These locations did not launch revolt in OTL, so why would they ATL? The main reason I don't think your long-term idea of the Roman Republic breaking apart is going to happen is because I think that someone will impose an Imperial solution that looks a lot like OTL at some point in the near future of the Republic.

There may remain a common 'Romaness' to it all, but I think it would be much looser and prone to sporadic break-ups. Not as quick as Alexander's, but similar result with many parts with one common heritage.

The Alexandrian Empire had a thin veneer of Hellenization. The Roman Empire had a small amount of localizing affecting Roman culture. See the polar difference?
 
You need to read your Roman history my friend. There were quite a number of attempts at changing the Republic via violence, e.g. Catiline's conspiracy. The Republic was also at time upheld by violence, for instance the killing of the Grachi brothers.
and the Republic killed all those men.... seems it was pretty good at doing that.
Without reform the underlying reasons that Rome was unstable would remain. This underlying instability had caused many men over a few generations to kill and risk death. That Caesar was stopped would not dissuade ambitious men in the future.

Antony had already gone outside the constitution, as he joined Caesar before he crossed the Rubicon.
crossing the Rubicon was a legal matter, not constitutional, and he was following his General, not leading.

Grabbing unwarranted authority would be constitutional.
If Caesar loses I think Pompey will make sure the political slate is wiped clean, and proscribe Caesar's supporters. If that doesn't happen and peace is made with Caesar's supporters, then Pompey risks the same scenario of a victorious army marching on Rome.
What victorious army? Caesar and Antony were defeated. Pompey was a smart tactician, so he wouldn't have left a strong Antony around - either he would have secured his compliance, or had him outlawed and killed. Regardless, that doesn't make him the beginnings of the Empire
He didn't become de facto King. He was one of three men who had managed to control the affairs of the Republic, but it was an informal, albeit effective, control.
That was only while Pompey and Cassius were alive. Once Cassius was dead and Pompey and the Senate abandoned Rome, Caesar was 'spontaneously' offered an actual Kingship by Antony (it was probably stage-managed) which was enthusiastically encouraged by the people of the city. That's when and what I am talking about, not the Triumvirate.
There wouldn't be any rex-phobia, since this isn't a new thing for Rome, political rivals settling their disputes via civil war.
Declarations of Regio were new, at least since the over-throw of the original kingdom. The Senate were quite allergic to it
If Pompey wins we are assuming, then I think that he will try and wipe out Caesar's supporters through the most favored means of Roman civil war combatants who are declared dictator, the proscription. Furthermore, his win would consolidate his power, thus instead of Julius we have Pompey. Now he would not enact the broad reforms that Caesar did, but neither would he return Roman politics to its pre-triumeverate state of populares-optimates conflict. After all, one of the perks of winning is that he gets to legally kill a lot of people who don't agree with him.
Yeah, he probably does, but after a little 'house-cleaning', i think Pompey would return power to the Senate - he wasn't Sulla, Marius, nor Julius. He was dissatisfied with the Triumvirate preciselyt because it put him in charge of the actal running of things - Julius got to fight in Gaul, Cassius got to be a merchant-king. It was Pompey that had to deal with running things, and he didn't enjoy it.
That is the beauty of symbols. They bring people together. But I don't think that Octavian would live if Pompey can get his hands on him. He is far too potent of a symbol. Plus he was smart as a whip and very ambitious, so if he does live then he will be an enormous threat in a very short amount of time.
Octavian entered the political ladder in OTL as a boy. He worked for his uncle, Caesar, as an aide during the civil war and then upon Caesar's assassination became one of the main leaders of the pro-Caesar faction due to his position as Caesar's adopted son.
I'm referring to holding the required positions on the official political ladder, not hanging out with men who are on it. OTL Octavian skipped the entire Cursus Honorum, which, while exceptional for an 18-year old, would not be possible for a 14 year-old. There's nothing that will convinve me otherwise other than an ASB
I don't agree that the Republic had reached the limit of control. I think that the Republic probably could have extended control East to the Zagros Mountains, and set up client states on the Iranian Plateau. The problem with your theory that perpherial regions would begin self-governing is that it is not backed up by an evidence that such a trend was occuring OTL.
Debatable... governors would need to leave in September to take up governorship in January, and the 6-8 month roundtrip time would mean Rome would have little input on local events. Whoever is Governor would have to have a great deal of authority on their own.... which, wait for it, is my point about the periphery becoming autonomous.
Caesar and Octavian's rule and reforms did not centralize political power in Rome, the Republic had already done that. Instead what their reforms did was to create order within that centralized arena, that is, Rome. This centralization of control had the side-effect of ending the process of territorial expansion by ambitious governors, because the reason for that territorial expansion, getting revenue with which to fuel a political career, disappeared with the imposition of the Imperial system, and the side-lining of electoral politics that accompanied it.
They also changed the nature of governorships, so they weren't turning over every year. And then it struggled, needing the creation Dioceses and 2 Caesari and 2 Augusti, and splitting the Empire... not over-night, but it did happen because the distances were so great.
Being a little harsh on the Senate aren't we? The major players on both sides of the Optimates-Populares split were Senatorial aristocracy.
So? The Republic was in long-term decline, and the Senate was adamant in preventing useful reforms that would cost them priveleges - that goes all the way back to the Gracchi
Sulla was essentially the same kind of man as Caesar, the difference was that his political ambitions were different. He thought the system was alright, and so did little to change it. Caesar thought the system was broken, and so acted to change it. Caesar then represented a far greater threat to the status quo of the Republic then Sulla did, thus causing the split in how their careers ended. That another Caesar would arise (Octavian for instance) or even another different person entirely.
My point exactly - Sulla was seen as temporary and therefore tolerable to the Senate (at least, those he didn't proscribe). Caesar was an existential threat to them.
Gaul was not capable of independence at the point in time in which we are talking. Caesar's invasion would best be described as a demographic catastrophe for residents of Gaul. Plutarch said that 3 million men fought the Romans. Of these 1 million died, 1 million were enslaved, and 1 million lived. If you were a member of the remaining 1 million your desire to fight the kind of military machine that Rome had proven itself would be just about zero. There are good reasons that Gaul did not rise during either the Caesar-Pompey or the Octavian-Antony, or indeed any of the other numerous Roman, Civil Wars. Caesar killed enough of them to convince them to be good Roman subjects.
Gaul may or may not revert to wild, but it was a recent acquisition, not a long-term integral part of Rome as you suggested. Much like Mesopotamia or even Dacia later on were, it could be seen as a temporary gain. The barbarian threat was removed, which was good, even if the lands no longer produced tax revenues.
As for the other places I would point to the same sort of thing. These locations did not launch revolt in OTL, so why would they ATL? The main reason I don't think your long-term idea of the Roman Republic breaking apart is going to happen is because I think that someone will impose an Imperial solution that looks a lot like OTL at some point in the near future of the Republic.
Mithradates.

Egyypt in this case is not a part of Rome.

Spain was relatively new at the Wealthy Province game, but it could have been a nice seat of power for someone with ambition.
The Alexandrian Empire had a thin veneer of Hellenization. The Roman Empire had a small amount of localizing affecting Roman culture. See the polar difference?
Thin veneer? We still benefit from the hellenic culture that he spread from West to East and back again, the basis for Western thought and Culture, and you say he left a thin veneer? Astonishing
 
and the Republic killed all those men.... seems it was pretty good at doing that.
My point is that despite the fact that one after another of these men rose up and was crushed by the Republic, it did not keep the next set of men from conspiring against the Republic. Projecting this trend forward, these type of men would continue to pop up. Caesar is remembered because he was the first successful one of this procession of conspiring men. If he were defeated, someone else would be remembered as the successful man.

crossing the Rubicon was a legal matter, not constitutional, and he was following his General, not leading.
Antony was thrown out of the Senate, left the city, and took up arms against the Senate, aiding a man declared a rebel by the Senate. He was Caesar's right hand man. If Caesar loses Antony's head would role.

That was only while Pompey and Cassius were alive. Once Cassius was dead and Pompey and the Senate abandoned Rome, Caesar was 'spontaneously' offered an actual Kingship by Antony (it was probably stage-managed) which was enthusiastically encouraged by the people of the city. That's when and what I am talking about, not the Triumvirate. Declarations of Regio were new, at least since the over-throw of the original kingdom. The Senate were quite allergic to it.
All this may be true, but the POD for Pompey being remembered as Pompey the Great is Pompey beating Caesar just after Rubicon. Therefore, all the things that Caesar did after he chased Pompey out of Rome wouldn't happen ATL. After Caesar chased Pompey out of Rome the Civil War was just a mopping up operation, since Caesar had control of the Republic. And after that point, in my opinion, Pompey couldn't win the Civil War no matter what.

Yeah, he probably does, but after a little 'house-cleaning', i think Pompey would return power to the Senate - he wasn't Sulla, Marius, nor Julius. He was dissatisfied with the Triumvirate preciselyt because it put him in charge of the actal running of things - Julius got to fight in Gaul, Cassius got to be a merchant-king. It was Pompey that had to deal with running things, and he didn't enjoy it.
That is because Pompey was politically incompetent, but we're ignoring that due to the nature of this particular post.

[/quote] I'm referring to holding the required positions on the official political ladder, not hanging out with men who are on it. OTL Octavian skipped the entire Cursus Honorum, which, while exceptional for an 18-year old, would not be possible for a 14 year-old. There's nothing that will convinve me otherwise other than an ASB.[/quote]

I'm sorry I should have clarified. I'm saying that if Octavian were to survive Caesar's defeat, then this would mean that in general Caesar's supporters managed to avoid a major purge. Thus when Octavian gets older, he would become the actual leader of the Populares, after having been a symbolic rallying point in his youth.

Debatable... governors would need to leave in September to take up governorship in January, and the 6-8 month roundtrip time would mean Rome would have little input on local events. Whoever is Governor would have to have a great deal of authority on their own.... which, wait for it, is my point about the periphery becoming autonomous.
Mesopotamia is not that far away from Rome.

They also changed the nature of governorships, so they weren't turning over every year. And then it struggled, needing the creation Dioceses and 2 Caesari and 2 Augusti, and splitting the Empire... not over-night, but it did happen because the distances were so great.
I think that's debatable. These changes weren't made until quite late in the Empire's history, for reasons that I don't think exist yet as of the period we're talking about.

So? The Republic was in long-term decline, and the Senate was adamant in preventing useful reforms that would cost them priveleges - that goes all the way back to the Gracchi
Why do you think the Republic is in long-term decline? I really really don't agree with you at all on that point. Perhaps politically choatic, but declining? The Republic was gaining territory and amassing power in the center. The problem was not that their was chaos in the periphery, but that there was chaos in the center. The Imperial reforms that were carried out were largely confined to Roman politics in the center.

Gaul may or may not revert to wild, but it was a recent acquisition, not a long-term integral part of Rome as you suggested. Much like Mesopotamia or even Dacia later on were, it could be seen as a temporary gain. The barbarian threat was removed, which was good, even if the lands no longer produced tax revenues.
Gaul suffered a massive loss of population as a result of the Roman invasion. This loss of population rendered Gaul incapable of throwing off Roman rule, while at the same time making the population particulary vulernable to Romanization. Gaul wouldn't walk away from the Republic because it was not capable of doing so under its own power at this time, and for quite a while in the future.

Mithradates.

Was the rebellious king of a Roman client state whose bloody but unsuccessful rebellion only served to strengthen Roman rule in the East.

Egyypt in this case is not a part of Rome.

It was also already holding a very important place in the Roman economy as the breadbasket of Rome. This made Egypt a very important client state to the Romans, and meant that if the Ptomley Dyansty stepped out of line, Rome would annex their country. Cleopatra made a play for more power with the alliance with Antony, lost the play, her life, and Egypt's independence. Egypt did not regain independence for well over a thousand years following this.

Spain was relatively new at the Wealthy Province game, but it could have been a nice seat of power for someone with ambition.

The reason that Rome became as powerful as she did was because of her ability to raise more armies then anyone else. This manpower advantage combined with good military technology, and a particularly unique way of producing a procession of good military leaders allowed the Romans to conquer the entire Mediterrian basin. Spain could not stand up to Italy, which is why Spain was ruled by Rome. Rich a province as she might be, an independent seat she would not become.
 
Last edited:
Top