Caesar executed during Sulla's purge

From the article on Wikipedia on Sulla, apparently Caesar was proscribed by Sulla and marked for execution. However, Sulla changed his mind and spared him.
--------
Sulla instituted a series of proscriptions (a program of executing those whom he perceived as enemies of the state). Plutarch states in his "Life" of Sulla (XXXI): "Sulla now began to make blood flow, and he filled the city with deaths without number or limit", further alleging that many of the murdered victims had nothing to do with Sulla, though Sulla killed them to "please his adherents".

"Sulla immediately proscribed eighty persons without communicating with any magistrate. As this caused a general murmur, he let one day pass, and then proscribed two hundred and twenty more, and again on the third day as many. In an harangue to the people, he said, with reference to these measures, that he had proscribed all he could think of, and as to those who now escaped his memory, he would proscribe them at some future time." -Plutarch, Life of Sulla (XXXI)

The proscriptions are widely perceived[by whom?] as a response to similar killings which Marius and Cinna had implemented while they controlled the Republic during Sulla's absence. Proscribing or outlawing every one of those whom he perceived to have acted against the best interests of the Republic while he was in the East, Sulla ordered some 1,500 nobles (i.e., senators and equites) executed, although it is estimated[by whom?] that as many as 9,000 people were killed.[15] The purge went on for several months. Helping or sheltering a proscribed person was punishable by death, while killing a proscribed person was rewarded with two talents. Family members of the proscribed were not excluded from punishment, and slaves were not excluded from rewards. As a result, "husbands were butchered in the arms of their wives, sons in the arms of their mothers".[16] The majority of the proscribed had not been enemies of Sulla, but instead were killed for their property, which was confiscated and auctioned off. The proceeds from auctioned property more than made up for the cost of rewarding those who killed the proscribed, making Sulla even wealthier. Possibly to protect himself from future political retribution, Sulla had the sons and grandsons of the proscribed banned from running for political office, a restriction not removed for over 30 years.

The young Caesar, as Cinna's son-in-law, became one of Sulla's targets and fled the city. He was saved through the efforts of his relatives, many of whom were Sulla's supporters, but Sulla noted in his memoirs that he regretted sparing Caesar's life, because of the young man's notorious ambition. The historian Suetonius records that when agreeing to spare Caesar, Sulla warned those who were pleading his case that he would become a danger to them in the future, saying: "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses."
------------
What would have happened had Sulla killed Caesar?
 
That's an interesting scenario, even more than "Caesar survives assassination", in my opinion, considering how much Caesar's life and death changed the Roman Republic.

Ignoring short-term butterflies (considering that Caesar only really got to influence Rome long-term political arena after his 30s), its certain that Gaul will escape conquest. Its possible that in the future some able and ambitious general might attempt to subjugate the Gauls... but its likely that instead of annexing the whole country, it comes to be that their kingdoms just become client states like Mauretania (as until Caesar and Augustus the Roman Republic saw the annexation of foreign peoples more as a nuisance than as a profitable purpose). On the long run, if we take Roman Gaul out of picture, whatever "Empire" rises from now on will be entirely different: there won't be a Rhine border with the Germanic peoples; emperors born in Gaul will never exist; soldiers raised from Gallic provinces will never be born, and so forth. Also, this butterflies completely the conquest of Britain. Even if Gaul is somehow conquered and annexed in the future by another Roman general(s), it will be in an entirely different context, so we can't really especulate on how it will be unless the previous divergences are explored. Its possible, of course, that Gaul is united into a single kingdom by some powerful Gallic ruler.

Now, regarding Rome itself, I'm convinced by the arguments explaining that the Republic was on its twilight since the Marian reforms, and Sulla himself created a very dangerous precedent for ambitious generals to seek the absolute power, even if using the pretext of "saving the traditional Roman institutions". I guess its just a matter of time before a more "autocratic" leader rises - even if provoking a civil war - to thwart the Senatorial oligarchy and install a dynastic claim. A candidate for this is Pompey, as in his youth he opposed the Senate and was wealthy, with military fame and a populist (besides, he was inspired by Sulla). It's also possible that some of the generals that participated IOTL Gallic Wars will obtain fame in other wars of the Republic.

Speaking of "Emperors", it's likely that neither Augustus nor Mark Anthony will come to political significance, as they grew in Caesar's shadow, and rose to greatness after Caesar's destruction, by opposing Caesar's assassins. This also avoids the annexation of Egypt, and of most of Illyria, Noricum, Rhaetia, Moesia, Pannonia, etc (all those places were annexed by Augustus to secure the newfound border along the Danube River). The Celtiberians will be inevitable subjugated by someone else than Augustus, as the Romans can't afford a hostile power inside Hispania, neither in Africa.

So, in my opinion, the Republic might linger for some time more, but it will sooner or later collapse under the weight of ambitious rulers, even if it gets closer to a "Crisis of 3rd Century" scenario than the stability brought by Augustus and his successors ("Pax Romana"). Yet, the Roman sphere will be much smaller, with more client states around its influence and possibly even more oriented to the eastern front than IOTL (if the Gallic peoples never become a real threat to Rome, that is), as they won't focus on the border with the Germanic and Steppe peoples.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that killing off Ceasar at this stage would stop Rome from annexing Egypt. Sure it might take longer but Egypt simply is to big and easy a price to keep around without collecting, as soon as someone can clear it with enough other highranking persons in the Roman republic, Egypt is going to fall on itself by the merest Roman push.

Important to note though is that the general opinion seems to be that the Republic was beyond any event horizon to stay alive without anything significant happening, most of the possible things being anathema to the existing Roman elite.
 
Not sure that killing off Ceasar at this stage would stop Rome from annexing Egypt. Sure it might take longer but Egypt simply is to big and easy a price to keep around without collecting, as soon as someone can clear it with enough other highranking persons in the Roman republic, Egypt is going to fall on itself by the merest Roman push.

Important to note though is that the general opinion seems to be that the Republic was beyond any event horizon to stay alive without anything significant happening, most of the possible things being anathema to the existing Roman elite.

Yeah, Egypt was almost annexed several times, and only survived because nobody in Rome wanted the easy wealth of conquering and plundering it to go to somebody else. (Kind of like the 19th-century Ottoman Empire, now that I think of it.)

Agree about the Republic as well. Even before Caesar's rise to power it was on borrowed time. The only real question was who would finally deliver the coup de grace.
 
That's an interesting scenario, even more than "Caesar survives assassination", in my opinion, considering how much Caesar's life and death changed the Roman Republic.

He influenced the single events, but not the important lines of economic and social development. For example, the battle of Alesia was caused by Caesar, but not the crisis of the republic or the rise of the generals.

Ignoring short-term butterflies (considering that Caesar only really got to influence Rome long-term political arena after his 30s), its certain that Gaul will escape conquest. Its possible that in the future some able and ambitious general might attempt to subjugate the Gauls... but its likely that instead of annexing the whole country, it comes to be that their kingdoms just become client states like Mauretania (as until Caesar and Augustus

Right, for a short time, Gaul will escape conquest. But looking on how the Middle and Late Roman republic worked, it's quite unlikely that Gaul wouldn't become Roman. Politicians needed money and glory to fuel their careers, they get both by leading campaings and conquering foreign countries. If not Caesar, another young senator will seize the opportunity to take Gaul or some parts of Gaul.

Though, other parts of Gaul/allied kingdoms might become client states - but, in the long run, they will be annexed too, as was example Mauretania.

the Roman Republic saw the annexation of foreign peoples more as a nuisance than as a profitable purpose).

Since the Roman Empire was, in its majority (Italia, Macedonia, Africa, Asia, Hispania, Narbonensis) built under the republic, I doubt that you are right here. The Roman Republic was the master of annexations.

On the long run, if we take Roman Gaul out of picture, whatever "Empire" rises from now on will be entirely different: there won't be a Rhine border with the Germanic peoples; emperors born in Gaul will never exist; soldiers raised from Gallic provinces will never be born, and so forth.

Here, you contradict yourself. If Gaul becomes a bunch of client states, these client states will be annexed sooner and later as were the OTL client kingdoms. So Caesar's death will absolutely not butterfly away the Rhine border, though these border will come slower without the genial general conquering Gaul.

Also, this butterflies completely the conquest of Britain. Even if Gaul is somehow conquered and annexed in the future by another Roman general(s), it will be in an entirely different context, so we can't really especulate on how it will be unless the previous divergences are explored.

Maybe. Maybe.

Its possible, of course, that Gaul is united into a single kingdom by some powerful Gallic ruler.

:eek::eek::eek: Gaul uniting without an extern threat is implausible, but Rome allowing the Gauls to form a single state is simply ASB.

Now, regarding Rome itself, I'm convinced by the arguments explaining that the Republic was on its twilight since the Marian reforms, and Sulla himself created a very dangerous precedent for ambitious generals to seek the absolute power, even if using the pretext of "saving the traditional Roman institutions". I guess its just a matter of time before a more "autocratic" leader rises - even if provoking a civil war - to thwart the Senatorial oligarchy and install a dynastic claim. A candidate for this is Pompey, as in his youth he opposed the Senate and was wealthy, with military fame and a populist (besides, he was inspired by Sulla). It's also possible that some of the generals that participated IOTL Gallic Wars will obtain fame in other wars of the Republic.

Pompey is a good candidate, but his ambition can be balanced by Crassus, Cicero, Lucullus. Even without Caesar, there will be civil wars, but their outcome mitght be different.

Speaking of "Emperors", it's likely that neither Augustus nor Mark Anthony will come to political significance, as they grew in Caesar's shadow, and rose to greatness after Caesar's destruction, by opposing Caesar's assassins.

Conceded.

This also avoids the annexation of Egypt,

Client kingdom. Pretty much ready for annexation.

and of most of Illyria, Noricum, Rhaetia, Moesia, Pannonia, etc (all those places were annexed by Augustus to secure the newfound border along the Danube River).

I don't think Augustus was the only one of the Romans wanting a border on the Danube.

So, in my opinion, the Republic might linger for some time more, but it will sooner or later collapse under the weight of ambitious rulers, even if it gets closer to a "Crisis of 3rd Century" scenario than the stability brought by Augustus and his successors ("Pax Romana"). Yet, the Roman sphere will be much smaller, with more client states around its influence and possibly even more oriented to the eastern front than IOTL (if the Gallic peoples never become a real threat to Rome, that is), as they won't focus on the border with the Germanic and Steppe peoples.

The Republic can last for some centuries more if it achieves to reform itself, maybe along the lines Cicero proposed.
 
Yeah, Egypt was almost annexed several times, and only survived because nobody in Rome wanted the easy wealth of conquering and plundering it to go to somebody else. (Kind of like the 19th-century Ottoman Empire, now that I think of it.)

Agree about the Republic as well. Even before Caesar's rise to power it was on borrowed time. The only real question was who would finally deliver the coup de grace.

When were some of those times?
 

I agree with most things you said, but I'm feeling you misunderstood some things I said.

Regarding what you said "the Republic was the master of annexations", what I had in mind was that most of the territories that became Roman provinces after Caesar's rise and death were annexed by Augustus - Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia, Moesia, most of Illyricum, and all the way to Thrace. Even Galatia and Cappadocia, if I recall correctly, were annexed by him. My point was simply that if Augustus never becomes single ruler, those places are likely to remain independent for some more time, perhaps are not even conquered at all. Some places you mentioned (Italia, Macedonia and Narbonensis, for example), were brought inside the Roman nation in very different strategical and political contexts than Augustus' attempted conquest of Germania, for example, or Pompey's conquest of Syria.

Regarding the Danube border, the impression I had was that it was purely an invention of Augustus. Perhaps he wasn't "the only Roman wanting a border on the Danube", as you said, but it only happened IOTL because of him, and it might not even happen without him. Until then, the Republic seemed content with coastal Balkanic regions (Dalmatia, Macedonia and Thrace), so I had no reason to suppose that without Augustus the Empire will have the same borders as it had in the 1st Century.

I agree with your points on Gaul. What I meant is that without Caesar perhaps we butterfly away the whole conquest, perhaps another general might attempt its conquest, or, more possibly, it will be subjugated piece by piece, if client kingdoms are created in a series of differente campaigns (and annexed in the long run, as you said). Anyways, I stand by my point that without Gaul - or even with Roman Gaul - Britain might escape Roman conquest entirely, and this creates another band of butterflies.

I didn't really know about Egypt during this time. I imagined without Caesar's intervention during the civil war with Pompey, and the later struggle between Octavian and Mark Anthony, that it might escape becoming a Roman province, but now I see that I was mistaken, so I concede this point.

Finally, about the Republic itself, I also I'm interested in the reform proposals by Cicero you mentioned. Do you happen to remember what they were? I guesse it would be a very interesting scenario this in which the Republic survives for some more centuries.
 
Top