Emperor Gaius Caesar

WI Gaius Caesar, the eldest son of Roman General Agrippa, didn't die in 4 A.D. Gaius Caesar was the heir to Octavius, and would have succeded his grandfather Cauesar Augstus (through his daughter Julia Caesaris) in 14 A.D.
 
Aussey said:
Why cant Julia just becomes Caesarina of the Romans?
Because the Romans were a rigidly patriarchal society. How else do you explain their success? :D

Seriously though, nearly a millenium later, having an Empress on the Eastern Roman Throne led to the Caroligian Emperor, since the Pope (and many many others) didn't think there could be an Empress. Women couldn't be politicians.

Do you have any idea how many hoops Augustus went through to create the Principate in the first place? It was an inheritable monarchy, that wasn't based on heredity, sworn to uphold and protect republic to which it was nominally subservient to but actually in control of. Its enough to make your head spin, and the cause of so many problems for the empire. If you want Augustus to leave the throne to Julia, then you're asking for another civil war, and Augustus knew this. Not that he even considered her for a heartbeat, nor did she or anyone else. She was the bridge between him and a possible heir. Thats the way things went.

Besides, look at all the possible heirs: Gaius, Aggripa, Drusus, Tiberius, Germanicus, and one or two others, IIRC. The only way I'd see Augustus naming her as his heir is if virtually politician in the government, officer in the army, and male relative of Augustus, died. And that would cause its own problems.
 
Name one female rmonarch that was hated, besides Queen Mary I of england & Wales. And she was only hated by Protestants. So besides her....
 
Aussey said:
Name one female rmonarch that was hated, besides Queen Mary I of england & Wales. And she was only hated by Protestants. So besides her....
The problem is, there were no female monarchs to be hated in Roman times. It was simply not considered "proper" for females to lead back then.
 
Faeelin said:
The romans weren't patriarchal at all, sorry.
Ok. I grant that they treated women with much more respect than many of their cotemporary civilizations. However, you never saw any women on the Coursus Honorum (I'm sure I spelled that wrong, the 306 special, my apartment's special drink, will do that to you).
 
Imajin said:
The problem is, there were no female monarchs to be hated in Roman times. It was simply not considered "proper" for females to lead back then.

Look, this is the time ofg Augustus. There IS no monarchy. There is no succession, no dynastic principle, no tradition of personal rule or divine emperorship. Augustus creates all of these, almost singlehanded. In his time, Augustus is a holder of exceptional magistracies and dispenser of patronage on a hitherto unimaginable scale, but he isn't a Roman emperor because, quite simply, nobody at the time knew what a Roman emperor was. It was left to him and his successors to define the concept.

Really, it's a little like looking at the Wright brothers and saying 'typical pilot behaviour.' :)
 
WI: Agrippa's sons survive

I've heard several people criticize Augustus because, they claim, he failed to secure the line of succession, which would eventually lead to Caligula and Nero becoming emperors. Of course, this is pure fiction, since Augustus did secure the line of succession, but was incredibly unlucky: his first choice, Marcellus (his nephew), died unexpectedly in 25BC. Afterward, Agrippa was made heir-apparent, but he also predeceased Augustus in 12BC. Tiberius was briefly made heir-apparent, but he went into voluntary retirement and exile; this left Agrippa's two sons by Julia, Octavian's grandsons, as his only heirs: Gaius and Lucius. However, Lucius died of an illness in 2AD and Gaius died as a result of wounds sustained during his campaigns in the east in 4AD.

Of all those deaths, the easiest one to hand wave away is Gaius, since it doesn't really require much more than placing another soldier in front of him to get injured in the siege. So, let's say that in 3AD, he doesn't get injured and survives: he is now the heir-apparent, and it would appear that he was a very talented military commander (he was leading a campaign in the east at the age of 23), and I've heard that he had also inherited Octavian's political talent as well.

So, with a PoD in 3AD, Gaius becomes emperor after Augustus. What happens next?
 
One would imagine all the 'WHY NOT CAESARINA/ROMANS NOT PATRIARCHIAL' idiots would realize if an empress could happen, it would have happened in our world.
 
Zenobia, Candice, Dido, Cleopatra, and that Iceni chick.
Not that the Romans would think much of Boudicca as an example considering that her reign consisted of killing lots of Romans. Then again, that objection applies to pretty much all of them (with the exception of Zenobia); just because the Romans were aware that other people accepted female rule doesn't mean it was a proper thing for Rome itself. Boudicca's revolt was pretty much directly caused by Roman misoginy since as far as they were concerned a woman couldn't inherit the Iceni, and thus annexed their lands.
 
So, with a PoD in 3AD, Gaius becomes emperor after Augustus. What happens next?
?So how old would he have been in 14 AD, assuming he lives till then?,

If he was a talented Commander, then he would have been involved with putting down the Danube revolts of 8~9 AD.
This allows a Different commander in the north [Black Forest] and Rome continues it's slow expansion into Germania.

A Lot would depend on how good a Heir, Gaius Picks. If he picks a good one, then the tradition is set, The Prince picks the Next - Protector of the Republic - .
 
He was born in 20 BC, so he would have been about 34 by Augustus' death (so he could realistically rule for some 20-30 years if all goes well).

Also, it should be noted that, unlike Julius and Augustus, Agrippa managed to have many children, so I don't think Gaius' fertility would have been as problematic as that of his grandfather and great-uncle. So, presumably, his son would inherit (and would probably be named Agrippa).
 
The problem is, there were no female monarchs to be hated in Roman times. It was simply not considered "proper" for females to lead back then.

I know that she wasn't a monarch in the modern sense, but Boudica of the Iceni revolted against the Roman invasion in 60 AD and she did quite a job. Maybe that's why the Romans detested her so much.
 
I know that she wasn't a monarch in the modern sense, but Boudica of the Iceni revolted against the Roman invasion in 60 AD and she did quite a job. Maybe that's why the Romans detested her so much.
This thread isn't about whether or not Rome could have had an empress damn it, it's about Gaius Ceaser surviving and the Julian dynasty along with him.

And, for what it's worth, it was impossible within the constitutional framework that Augustus had set up for a woman to succeed him, primarily because it was still the Republic in name and women were barred from public office.

Now can we please get back on topic?
 
The problem is that Gaius is a blank slate. We don't know much about him, a part the usual praises. He could have turned a good emperor as a bad one.

What is interesting though is if Augustus, naming directly his heir, started the tradition of choosing the worthier among the possible heirs and not the next of kin. This change could probably lenghten the Julius-Claudius dinasty life.

Anyway, if you believe to Robert Graves, you'll have first to eleminate all the females of the family :D
 
Top