Crassus Lives, Caesar Dies

So recently the "Caesar dies at Aleesia" trope has been making the rounds on this site. I'm not that interested in the ramification for Gaul or anything like that of Caesar dying since that's been pretty much covered in the previous 2 threads. What I am interested in however is what happens if Crassus survives the Carrhae campaign (for the sake of discussion, he doesn't achieve much military success, he just doesn't die), and the following year Caesar is dead on the battlefield at Alesia? What effects does this have in the Roman political climate? The triumvirate had already suffered political defeat after political defeat (well, Pompey did at least, Crassus was making off well). Given Crassus and Pompey's previous enmity and given the triumvirate has been nothing but a disaster for Pompey politically, I think it's safe to say the triumvirate collapses.


But the most interesting thing I think is how Crassus moves forward. Crassus' strategy politically basically was to form his own faction among the pedarii, the backbenchers whose loyalty was much stronger than say the fickle prominent aristocrats that dominated the senate (hence why he didn't lose much in the triumvirate since he never relied on the major players that hated the triumvirate anyway like Pompey did). His strategy was a much more long term one than probably even Caesar's. How does the political field play out from here?
 
Crassus ain't a military genius as Caesar. But he is as wealthy as the roman treasury. Politics goes where the money goes.
 
No, in the mid fifties, Crassus was not richer than Pompey or Caesar. The point is that his wealth had more liquidity than the others. He had in proportion less real Estate than other and had more "securities". He had his fortune circulate more quickly by putting a strong part of it in private works transactions, in publican (tax farmers) compagnies, and in loans to other politicians.

As to his strategy in domestic politics, I agree only partout that it was more solid than Pompey's. Sure, Crassus had the best network in the Senate thanks to pedarii and he had less enemies. Sure, the high aristocrats aroundme Pompey were not trustable.
But this network was not a party and it vanished at his death while Pompey's party and Caesar's overlived them.

And I think Caesar's strategy concerning Italy was like Pompey's and it was the best. They built their clientelae among italian elites not yet in the Senate. These men were loyal to their patron and to their patron's sons.

This is like investing : Crassus lent obligations to publicly listed companies of at best took shares in their capital. It was rather sure but it was not a very profitable investment.

Pompey and Caesar were the 2 big "capital-risk companies" of their time. They were the first investors, did it before IPO and took much more profit when picking the right stock.

This was the first signs of what Ronald Syme called the roman revolution.
 
No, in the mid fifties, Crassus was not richer than Pompey or Caesar. The point is that his wealth had more liquidity than the others. He had in proportion less real Estate than other and had more "securities". He had his fortune circulate more quickly by putting a strong part of it in private works transactions, in publican (tax farmers) compagnies, and in loans to other politicians.

As to his strategy in domestic politics, I agree only partout that it was more solid than Pompey's. Sure, Crassus had the best network in the Senate thanks to pedarii and he had less enemies. Sure, the high aristocrats aroundme Pompey were not trustable.
But this network was not a party and it vanished at his death while Pompey's party and Caesar's overlived them.

And I think Caesar's strategy concerning Italy was like Pompey's and it was the best. They built their clientelae among italian elites not yet in the Senate. These men were loyal to their patron and to their patron's sons.

This is like investing : Crassus lent obligations to publicly listed companies of at best took shares in their capital. It was rather sure but it was not a very profitable investment.

Pompey and Caesar were the 2 big "capital-risk companies" of their time. They were the first investors, did it before IPO and took much more profit when picking the right stock.

This was the first signs of what Ronald Syme called the roman revolution.
The only reason Pompey and Caesar's factions lasted past their deaths was because of the civil war. Otherwise, there was nothing spectacular about Caesar's following prior to the civil war, and Pompey's "faction" was in shambles by 50.
 
I think that one need Tomane distinction between roman noble allies and italian followers/clients.

Until defeat and death, Pompey was never by his italian of spanish clients. They faithfully followed him for more than 30 years, with of without civil war. They even followed his sons for 3 years after his death, in a quite hopeless struggle.
 
Top