Caesarion, Emperor of Rome?

[Xanthoc]

Alright, this one is an idea I've always been curious about;

Might Caesarion, son of Cleopatra VII and (likely) Gaius Julius Caesar, have a shot at getting the upper hand on Augustus and becoming Emperor himself? Would he even want to be Emperor of Rome? Would good ol' Octavian have to die from something else before he could succeed at it?

My thinking is, OTL, he was seen as a threat by Octavian, and tried to maintain Egyptian autonomy. Furthermore, he was of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which means he was half-Roman and half-Greek, so I don't believe there would be any sort of issues coming from his ethnic background, although that overall wasn't too large an issue for Romans.

Now, I suppose the next question is, had he succeeded, what might he do differently than Augustus? How differently? Would the Empire be as we know it? How would Egypt fare in comparison to OTL? What would the Empire of Augustus Ptolemaeus Philopator Philomētor Caesar look like?

 

[Keperry]

There is an awesome timeline on this topic called After Actium: Two Caesars Are Not Enough, by Velasco.

 

[Xanthoc]

There is an awesome timeline on this topic called After Actium: Two Caesars Are Not Enough, by Velasco.

Whelp there's my next binge read for the week

 

[Matteo]

Alright, this one is an idea I've always been curious about;

Might Caesarion, son of Cleopatra VII and (likely) Gaius Julius Caesar, have a shot at getting the upper hand on Augustus and becoming Emperor himself? Would he even want to be Emperor of Rome? Would good ol' Octavian have to die from something else before he could succeed at it?

My thinking is, OTL, he was seen as a threat by Octavian, and tried to maintain Egyptian autonomy. Furthermore, he was of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which means he was half-Roman and half-Greek, so I don't believe there would be any sort of issues coming from his ethnic background, although that overall wasn't too large an issue for Romans.

Now, I suppose the next question is, had he succeeded, what might he do differently than Augustus? How differently? Would the Empire be as we know it? How would Egypt fare in comparison to OTL? What would the Empire of Augustus Ptolemaeus Philopator Philomētor Caesar look like?

By all roman standards, no. It was just impossible and unacceptable. Caesarion would have been considered like an unroman half foreigner bastard son, barely more valuable than a son born from a former slave enfranchized.

The only credible way I see is some kind of substitution trick where Caesar would make people believe that Caesarion was born from his wife Calpurnia.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

By all roman standards, no. It was just impossible and unacceptable. Caesarion would have been considered like an unroman half foreigner bastard son, barely more valuable than a son born from a former slave enfranchized.

The only credible way I see is some kind of substitution trick where Caesar would make people believe that Caesarion was born from his wife Calpurnia.

I wouldn't say impossible. I really do think Velasco created a fairly plausible scenario where it could have happened. Granted though, it's incredibly unlikely and under most circumstances just can't happen. It really needs extraordinary circumstances for all the pieces to fit in right.

 

[Duke of Nova Scotia]

During the late Republic, Romans tended to look at anyone not Roman with great suspicion. Getting the son of a foreign Queen and a local Patrician, to become leader is really really hard to happen. It would be like as if Ted Cruze had maintained his Canadian citizenship, and won the presidency. IMO.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

During the late Republic, Romans tended to look at anyone not Roman with great suspicion. Getting the son of a foreign Queen and a local Patrician, to become leader is really really hard to happen. It would be like as if Ted Cruze had maintained his Canadian citizenship, and won the presidency. IMO.

All too true. Yet at the same time, he's the son of Julius Caesar (or at least in this scenario, the vast majority of people recognize him as such). So while it very much is incredibly unlikely, there is a small window of opportunity.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Problem is the whole thing with the empire (the principate) was that Octavian actually openly renounced all power over the state and thus made clear that he wasn't going to attempt to become king - as some senators ascribed to his adoptive father Caesar. Only after officially restoring the res publica, Octavian could become Emperor (princeps) and get practical absolute power.

Now think of Caesarion, and the options he has:

1. Become, as son of Cleopatra, (Greek) Pharaoh of Egypt - that is assuming that Cleopatra chooses the right side in the Civil War between Octavian and Mark Antony. Egypt become a client kingdom of the Roman Empire, and Caesarion acts as a loyal vassal to the Roman Empire. His blood links to the imperial dynasty strengthen his position, but he is nothing more than a subordinate ruler.
2. Claim the succession of Caesar and Cleopatra. So basically he wants to become an absolute monarch of Rome and Egypt, some sort of Roman "King of Kings" like all the other Hellenistic and oriental rulers. Big mistake. Even if he can win the civil war against his enemies (potential opponents are Mark Antony, Octavian, Lepidus, Brutus and Cassius), even if he enters Rome in triumph and declares himself a living god on the Capitol, he will be dead within one year, murdered by some nostalgic senators indignant about his behaviour. His death will open the fourth turn of Roman Civil Wars, and this Civil War might be fatal for the Roman Empire if the Parthians seize the opportunity to conquer Asia Minor.
3. Set up a Principate analogon. I highly doubt this is possible, since a boy educated by oriental castrati might be able to rule Egypt, but has no sense for the republican mindset of the Roman elite. Additionally, even if he manages to understand the Romans and their sensible points, how can he convincingly assure the senate that he isn't going to act like (2)? Octavian in 27 BC could, since he fought against Cleopatra about "Roman liberties" - Caesarion is just a half Roman, oriental monarch: imagine him speaking of restoring the res publica and giving power back to SPQR. Sincerly, this is unbelievable and would be a blatant lie.

But you asked how an Empire lead by Caesarion would look like. Since 1 and 2 aren't the best options to fulfill your request, let's stick to 3 and assume that he set up something like the Principate and now rule as a Roman Emperor.


First, his title: Augustus Ptolemaeus Philopator Philomētor Caesar is quite inappropriate, since it put emphasis on the fact that he is a Greek, oriental monarch ("Ptolemaeus Philopator Philometer") - throw this titles of. "Augustus" is possible, but there were some other possibilites. Maybe he would have chosen "Romulus"? Who knows? This is Alternate History


So a better name would be "Avgvstvs/Romvlvs Caesar divi filivs Imperator" - no references to Egypt, just a normal Roman son of the divine Caesar.


Second, his politics: since he grew up in Egypt, I imagine that his politics would be centered in the eastern part of the Empire. A Roman conquest of Nubia and Ethiopia is probable, maybe also a new attempt against Parthia.

 

[Xenophonte]

Mos Maiorum

If Caesar was than carefully about denying himself to allowed his supporters give him the title of King, because this action for the Romans will be an offense against the Mos Maiorum, is very doubtful He will do it and had this risk for a Bastard.

After all the practice of adoption was so popular in Rome because of that there was no obsession of contemporary monarchs to obtain an heir of his own blood.

 

[Matteo]

I wouldn't say impossible. I really do think Velasco created a fairly plausible scenario where it could have happened. Granted though, it's incredibly unlikely and under most circumstances just can't happen. It really needs extraordinary circumstances for all the pieces to fit in right.

I know. I read very large part of this timeline which is remarkable to several respects. But nonetheless on this point, I thought from the start that the scheme leading to Caesarion becoming emperor was quite unrealistic.

It is not only that it would need extraordinary circumstances but also that it would need an extraordinary change of mind of the roman people and the roman elite. Octavian succeeded in cornering Anthony by riding the hate of the "egyptian whore".This was not the late 2nd century AD or the early 3rd century AD when eastern former client kings or client dynasts were members of the Senate. I know the notion of racism must not be used in an anachronistic way, but the roman people at the time of the the time of Caesar were in a way very xenophobic. They were of course not the only one but they happened to be the people king and they could not stand that the bastard son of their ruler born from a non-roman woman become their ruler.

That's why I think the best way to have a real chance to have Caesarion be accepted as Caesar's son and political heir is to have a trick making believe that his mother is Caesar's roman wife.

 

[Indicus]

He'd be little more than his mother's puppet. Everyone knew this, so there is little hope for Caesarion becoming Caesar.

 

[Mike Louis]

I could see Caesarion and Octavian as founders of two rival branches of the Julian dynasty, ala the Wars of the Roses. While Caesarion himself could never become Roman Emperor I could see his descendants making a bid for the throne when either Caligula or Nero gets killed or commits suicide. Remember the main reason Octavian had Caesarion killed was to eliminate any potential claimants / figureheads for a potential uprising against him.

 

[Londinium]

He'd be little more than his mother's puppet. Everyone knew this, so there is little hope for Caesarion becoming Caesar.

That's somewhat conjecture as he was only 17 at the time of his assassination. I mean, yes it's likely he would have been as Cleo would have counted on but it's ALSO possible he could have pulled a Nero and totally overwhelmed his own mother in spite of all her engineering on his behalf in the hopes of a puppetry career.

 

[Russian]

As it says on the tin. Cleopatra left children by both Caesar and Marc Antony. Antony's descent by Octavia the Younger married into the Imperial family (Marcellus, Antonia the Elder, Germanicus and Claudia Octavia), so what if, somehow, the Julio-Ptolemaic or the Antonine-Ptolemaic line were to enter into the lists? (probably more likely the latter unless you accept that Cleopatra had a daughter by Caesar: the Thea Musa Urania of record, and she marries into the Augustan line). It might not necessarily help with the incest in the Imperial family, since the Ptolemaic dynasty make the Habsburgs look like amateurs in that regard, but it makes for an interesting idea (at least IMHO).

Looking forward to opinions

this thread might be relevant

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Problem is the whole thing with the empire (the principate) was that Octavian actually openly renounced all power over the state and thus made clear that he wasn't going to attempt to become king - as some senators ascribed to his adoptive father Caesar. Only after officially restoring the res publica, Octavian could become Emperor (princeps) and get practical absolute power.

I don't particularly buy this line of argument that much anymore. The Senate was perfectly aware that Octavian was an all powerful autocrat in everything but name. The reason Augustus was successful was for a couple of reasons. For starters, he spent the over a decade almost exclusively in Rome between 42-27BCE. That was crucial for him building up relationships with Senators and creating a firm base of support. The Senate was used to having him around and dealing with the fact that he was the boss. They adapted for the most part. Compare this to Caesar, who was almost never in Rome, built up no relationships among the Senatorial class (below the surface anyway) and did nothing to engender loyalty among those who weren't already staunch Caesarian partisans.

More importantly, the appetite for war or "liberty" among the Senate was very low by the time Augustus emerged as the victor over Antony. The leaders of the assassination of Caesar were long dead, and Augustus left no doubt about what would happen to those who crossed him-the proscriptions still burned in everyone's memory. On top of that, the Senate had not maintained any effective power or much free will for the better part of 20 years by 27 BCE. A large number of the ranks of the Senate by that point had come into the institution during the civil wars, or at the very least in the turbulent few years before Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Most of those still left from before those days were either pragmatic or firmly in the Caesarian faction, for the optimate ideologues of the era would have been long dead by then.

In short, it's foolish, in my opinion at least, to think that Octavian's maintenance of power was based on the fiction he crafted with the principate. Modern day historians put far more attention and emphasis on that aspect than ancient Senators would have.

 

[Tonifranz]

I don't particularly buy this line of argument that much anymore. The Senate was perfectly aware that Octavian was an all powerful autocrat in everything but name. The reason Augustus was successful was for a couple of reasons. For starters, he spent the over a decade almost exclusively in Rome between 42-27BCE. That was crucial for him building up relationships with Senators and creating a firm base of support. The Senate was used to having him around and dealing with the fact that he was the boss. They adapted for the most part. Compare this to Caesar, who was almost never in Rome, built up no relationships among the Senatorial class (below the surface anyway) and did nothing to engender loyalty among those who weren't already staunch Caesarian partisans.

More importantly, the appetite for war or "liberty" among the Senate was very low by the time Augustus emerged as the victor over Antony. The leaders of the assassination of Caesar were long dead, and Augustus left no doubt about what would happen to those who crossed him-the proscriptions still burned in everyone's memory. On top of that, the Senate had not maintained any effective power or much free will for the better part of 20 years by 27 BCE. A large number of the ranks of the Senate by that point had come into the institution during the civil wars, or at the very least in the turbulent few years before Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Most of those still left from before those days were either pragmatic or firmly in the Caesarian faction, for the optimate ideologues of the era would have been long dead by then.

In short, it's foolish, in my opinion at least, to think that Octavian's maintenance of power was based on the fiction he crafted with the principate. Modern day historians put far more attention and emphasis on that aspect than ancient Senators would have.

Then why bother with the entire fiction if it didn't matter at all? He could do anything with his legions, but why did he try to go out of his way to pretend that nothing actually changes, when everyone knew that it was all a facade? Why bother trying to find constitutional precedents to cloth his naked power? Why the elaborate facade of 27 BC of formally handing back the power to the Senate and receiving it back?

Augustus I think sincerely believes that he is really restoring the Republic, and that he really thought that he just following precedent, that the powers he had as triumvir though necessary were illegal and irregular, and that he believes in the Senate and the traditional values of the Republic. He really is a conservative patrician. And that he believes that his position is just that of leading man of the Republic, a position held once by Cincinnatus, Camillus, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, Pompey the Great.

 

[Matteo]

Then why bother with the entire fiction if it didn't matter at all? He could do anything with his legions, but why did he try to go out of his way to pretend that nothing actually changes, when everyone knew that it was all a facade? Why bother trying to find constitutional precedents to cloth his naked power? Why the elaborate facade of 27 BC of formally handing back the power to the Senate and receiving it back?

Augustus I think sincerely believes that he is really restoring the Republic, and that he really thought that he just following precedent, that the powers he had as triumvir though necessary were illegal and irregular, and that he believes in the Senate and the traditional values of the Republic. He really is a conservative patrician. And that he believes that his position is just that of leading man of the Republic, a position held once by Cincinnatus, Camillus, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, Pompey the Great.

No, none of the Pen you mentioned ever held the tenth of the power Augustus held.

Why did Augustus elaborate this facade ?

Because in an aristocratic society that still held firmly on archaic values and virtues, honore and dignity were a matter of life and death. So the roman traditional aristocracy needed a symbol to accept the reality of the monarchy : the so-called restoration of the republic.
They also needed a guarantee that then would to a certain extent be associanted to the imperial power and that their wealth and social status would be guaranteed. That's what Augustus gave them from 22 BCE on.

Nobody was fooled by the comedy. That's why Tacitus dared write that Rome got peace and a princeps. And nobody was fooled in believing that the title of Princeps had the same meaning as It had had for Lucius Valerius Flaccus (consul 100 BCE), Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 187 and 175 BCE), Scipio Africanus, or Fabius Maximus Cunctator.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Then why bother with the entire fiction if it didn't matter at all? He could do anything with his legions, but why did he try to go out of his way to pretend that nothing actually changes, when everyone knew that it was all a facade? Why bother trying to find constitutional precedents to cloth his naked power? Why the elaborate facade of 27 BC of formally handing back the power to the Senate and receiving it back?

Augustus I think sincerely believes that he is really restoring the Republic, and that he really thought that he just following precedent, that the powers he had as triumvir though necessary were illegal and irregular, and that he believes in the Senate and the traditional values of the Republic. He really is a conservative patrician. And that he believes that his position is just that of leading man of the Republic, a position held once by Cincinnatus, Camillus, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, Pompey the Great.

You answered your own question, well partially at least. Augustus, at his heart was a conservative. He worked it out that way because of his innate conservatism. He wanted a way where he could have supreme power and still, at least in his mind at least, return to the past (Romans as a whole were big on the past and not big on innovations, even if we see them as such today when looking back at the accomplishments of emperors. Whereas we see them as innovations, they saw it as restoring the good old days). When this became impossible through the continued use of the consulship because it bottlenecked the advancement of illustrious families, he went his own way.

None of this however means that this was necessary for him to maintain power. Whether it was blatant or subtle, by 27 BCE Augustus had secured completely secured his grip on power. Obviously openly declaring himself dictator would have horrible optics, just by nature of what the office was associated with by then, but displaying and flexing his power much more openly wouldn't have changed much.