The next round of civil wars is Octavian vs. Pompey's successors.
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...
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.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 . . .
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).Restored in the sense of . . . what?
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.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.
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 dissipatedIf Octavian lives, then he would become a rallying point for the Populares. He is Caesar's heir.
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 ladderCaesar 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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
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'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.
and the Republic killed all those men.... seems it was pretty good at doing that.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.
crossing the Rubicon was a legal matter, not constitutional, and he was following his General, not leading.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.
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 EmpireIf 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.
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.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.
Declarations of Regio were new, at least since the over-throw of the original kingdom. The Senate were quite allergic to itThere wouldn't be any rex-phobia, since this isn't a new thing for Rome, political rivals settling their disputes via civil war.
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.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.
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 ASBThat 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 GracchiBeing a little harsh on the Senate aren't we? The major players on both sides of the Optimates-Populares split were Senatorial aristocracy.
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.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.
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 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.
Mithradates.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.
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? AstonishingThe Alexandrian Empire had a thin veneer of Hellenization. The Roman Empire had a small amount of localizing affecting Roman culture. See the polar difference?
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.and the Republic killed all those men.... seems it was pretty good at doing that.
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.crossing the Rubicon was a legal matter, not constitutional, and he was following his General, not leading.
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.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.
That is because Pompey was politically incompetent, but we're ignoring that due to the nature of this particular post.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.
Mesopotamia is not that far away from Rome.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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.