Caesar Captures the Senate in 49 BC

Whilst browsing the Genocide I cam across a quote from Frances Titchener when discussing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon that,

Finally [Caesar] makes a decision, it's time to go, and he uses a gambling metaphor: he says 'Roll the dice', 'Alea jacta est'. Once the dice start rolling they cannot be controlled, even though we don't know what it is as the dice roll and tumble. Julius and his men swiftly cross the river and they march double time toward Rome, where they almost beat the messengers sent to inform the Senate of their arrival."

Now I've read in other places that Caesar's progress south was apparently slower than Titchener suggests but let's say for this discussion he's actually slightly faster and manages to reach Rome literally on the heels of the messengers. This comes as a major shock to his opponents with the Senate and Pompey not having the warning time to evacuate the city. So the question becomes what happens next? Would this be an improvement for Caesar, or was he better off allowing them to flee and damage their personal prestige for doing so even at the cost of having to later fight them?
 
it would be a massive victory! he could purge some elements of the senate and preserve others, bonus points if he captures Pompey! (it is game over for the senate faction as they have no other major former or current general to lead their forces and raise others from among allies.) There would still be unrest and relbellions but not on the scale of OTL allowing Caesar to maybe go ahead with his Dacian campaign (which could bring in as much wealth as Gaul did for him) then his revenge attack against the Persians. I dont think that there would be anymore sucess than say Traijan's campaign but still a big win! there would still be a massive civil war on his death or assassination unless Octavian can kill off Brutus and Mark Anthony!
 
It would indeed be a massive victory, although I doubt its plausibility. No matter how quickly Caesar marches, a single guy on horseback would be all that's necessary to get the message to Rome beforehand.
 
Yes, but if Caesar marches faster then even if Rome does have a forewarning of him, Pompey and Senate have less time to pack up.

How much warning did Rome have of Sulla in 90 BC? Of Caesar divi filius in August 43 BC?
 
Run a good archer likely a Celt or a German, say he shoots the rider off of his saddle. That rider is down, no message is getting to Rome. From there, see what happens, I agree with Krishna.
 
Wasen't it normal during those times to send more than one messenger, just incase something like that would happen ?
 

Red Orm

Banned
Yes, but if Caesar marches faster then even if Rome does have a forewarning of him, Pompey and Senate have less time to pack up.

How much warning did Rome have of Sulla in 90 BC? Of Caesar divi filius in August 43 BC?

It's funny, nobody actually believed that Sulla would march on Rome the first time. As for getting the Senate, if they have less than a full two or three days to pack and leave, they're never leaving Italy.
 
Wasen't it normal during those times to send more than one messenger, just incase something like that would happen ?

Yes, plus, there were several cities and military units loyal to the Senate between Rome and Rubicon, and it isn't likely that all of them would fail to get their message through.
 
Top