Historiography of a Legal Julius Caesar?

Assume the following:

Relations between Caesar and the Senate do not deteriorate so badly, and he never marches on Rome. He standa for election, wins, and pursues a distinguished career, but never rises to anything like Dictator. He dies of old age, the leading man of his generation, having enacted many needed reforms.

Now, assume one of the two following:
A: The Republic still collapses into one-man rule within a generation or so (to give a convenient cutoff date, we’ll day AD 14).
B: The Republic lingers on for another century at least.

We’ll also assume that the empire eventually does collapse around the 4th-7th century, even if the particulars are totally different. I don’t think this should matter, but lets just set that down now: this is not a ‘Roma Aeterna.’

So, how is Caesar regarded by following generations in either of these two outcomes?
 
Assume the following:

Relations between Caesar and the Senate do not deteriorate so badly, and he never marches on Rome. He standa for election, wins, and pursues a distinguished career, but never rises to anything like Dictator. He dies of old age, the leading man of his generation, having enacted many needed reforms.

Now, assume one of the two following:
A: The Republic still collapses into one-man rule within a generation or so (to give a convenient cutoff date, we’ll day AD 14).
B: The Republic lingers on for another century at least.

We’ll also assume that the empire eventually does collapse around the 4th-7th century, even if the particulars are totally different. I don’t think this should matter, but lets just set that down now: this is not a ‘Roma Aeterna.’

So, how is Caesar regarded by following generations in either of these two outcomes?

Caesar’s relations did not deteriorate with the Senate as a whole. It deteriorated with a very small minority of the Senate that triggered a coup in late 50 and in the very first days of 49, which Caesar could react to only by either submitting to his political enemies and face total political annihilation, or by leading a counter-coup.

This very small minority was made of a faction of very noble and influential optimates that were the core of the alliance of families and factions that had been prominent in Roman political life post Sulla’s death.

Their naked weight was unveiled by Curio’s craft in the Senate when he had 370 senators adopt a motion that both Caesar and Pompey should lay down their extraordinary commands, against 22 senators that wanted to destroy Caesar’s position at all costs.

This being said, if Caesar prevails on the political field in late 50 before reaching the breaking point, he will not merely pursue a distinguished career. He will quite quickly dislodge Pompey from his position of first man in Rome.

If Pompey decided to ally himself again with the optimates in 50, it was precisely, as Cicero stated, because he could not bear the idea that Caesar could become his equal in prestige. Pompey’s star was fading the same way as Marius’s star had been fading with the rise of Sulla.

Pompey tried to play the same trick to Caesar as Marius tried to Sulla. And Caesar reacted the same way as Sulla because he had no other choice than armed uprising or political annihilation.

This being said, Caesar will probably become the first man in Rome and may try to get the next extraordinary command that was to be against the Parthia said to reestablish Rome’s position in the East after Crassus’ disaster.

So there is a quite high probability that the monarchical ruler that emerges one generation later will have family or political connections with Caesar or with both Caesar of Pompey.

Guess who did have such family connections with both Caesar of Pompey.

Let me give you a clue : he is extremely famous and is considered OTL as the founder of the Roman imperial regime.
 
So, how is Caesar regarded by following generations in either of these two outcomes?

Probably as another Sulla or Marius; powerful, influential, with Rome's best interest at heart, but unfortunately his rise to power was another symptom of the decline of the Senate and the power of political norms to restrain men who would gather power onto themselves. In this scenario Caesar seems to be Sulla II.
 
Probably as another Sulla or Marius; powerful, influential, with Rome's best interest at heart, but unfortunately his rise to power was another symptom of the decline of the Senate and the power of political norms to restrain men who would gather power onto themselves. In this scenario Caesar seems to be Sulla II.

Except this Caesar is never proclaimed dictstor or an enemy of the state. Maybe another Scipio Africanus?
 
Except this Caesar is never proclaimed dictstor or an enemy of the state. Maybe another Scipio Africanus?

I must have misread your original post. In that case I would suggest he would most likely fall into Cicero's camp politically (or Cicero into Caesar's) and possibly be considered the political "muscle" to Cicero's legal and political arguments. I think Matteo is correct that Caesar would try to become first man in Rome but as long as he maintained the pretense of maintaining the political order I think Cicero would have stuck by him as his reforms were needed and remarkably efficient. In this world it seems that Caeser would be more of a defender of the Republic than Pompey was.

Would a Triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey, and Cicero work?
 
I must have misread your original post. In that case I would suggest he would most likely fall into Cicero's camp politically (or Cicero into Caesar's) and possibly be considered the political "muscle" to Cicero's legal and political arguments. I think Matteo is correct that Caesar would try to become first man in Rome but as long as he maintained the pretense of maintaining the political order I think Cicero would have stuck by him as his reforms were needed and remarkably efficient. In this world it seems that Caeser would be more of a defender of the Republic than Pompey was.

Would a Triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey, and Cicero work?

No because Cicero just did not play in the same league as Pompey and Caesar in the late 50’s.

In 59, Caesar did all he could to have a kind of Quadriumvirate. He wanted Cicero to join him, Pompey and Crassus, in order to gather the support of many moderates. But Cicero refused.

The point is Cicero, like many Roman nobles, did not like that there actually be a first man in Rome or 3 first men in Rome. In the late 60´s, he was even harassing Pompey while claiming to be his political friend because Pompey was then the uncontested first man in Rome. This is this harassment of Pompey by the various factions of the Roman nobility in the Senate that precisely pushed Pompey into Caesar’s arms for the whole 50´s.

Caesar was at the same time extremely talented on the political arena, loyal to his commitments, and did not hesitate to resort to necessary means to have the goals he shared with his allies fulfilled. This is why he was a very expensive ally and got such a command as all Gauls in exchange for satisfying both Pompey’s and Crassus’ needs and demands.

And in fact Cicero was not a reliable partner. Only if fearing for his own position and badly needing the support of the most powerful men such as Pompey and Caesar would he not try to undermine them.

Cicero also viscerally opposed popularis agenda which Caesar was promoting.
 
Butteflying Caesar's march on Rome is pretty easy to do because that had little to do with a break of relationship between Caesar and the Optimates and much more with Pompey's change of alliance...
Without a general able and popular like Pompey the Optimates can not go openly against Caesar like OTL, specially if Pompey is still an ally of Caesar so you can butterfly Julia's death in childbirth, give a couple of children to her and Pompey and thed alliance between Caesar and Pompey will be unbreakable and another civil war unlikely to happen
 
Guess who did have such family connections with both Caesar of Pompey.

Let me give you a clue : he is extremely famous and is considered OTL as the founder of the Roman imperial regime
Octavians political fortunes benefited immensely from the chaotic post civil war environment, an environment that won't exist ITTL. He can certtsinly make a name for himself politically, but almost certainly not close to the extent he did IOTL, particularly given his notable lack of military skill. Any potential autocrat is no more likely to be of relation to Caesar/Pompey than they were to be related to Sulla.
 
Butteflying Caesar's march on Rome is pretty easy to do because that had little to do with a break of relationship between Caesar and the Optimates and much more with Pompey's change of alliance...
Without a general able and popular like Pompey the Optimates can not go openly against Caesar like OTL, specially if Pompey is still an ally of Caesar so you can butterfly Julia's death in childbirth, give a couple of children to her and Pompey and thed alliance between Caesar and Pompey will be unbreakable and another civil war unlikely to happen
I'm skeptical that would have much of an impact. But you can indeed easily butterfly the civil war away if you just get rid of Curio. He took what was a highly volatile but still manageable situation and took a wrecking ball to it.
 
Octavians political fortunes benefited immensely from the chaotic post civil war environment, an environment that won't exist ITTL. He can certtsinly make a name for himself politically, but almost certainly not close to the extent he did IOTL, particularly given his notable lack of military skill. Any potential autocrat is no more likely to be of relation to Caesar/Pompey than they were to be related to Sulla.

I just implied that Octavian would still be adopted by his great-uncle in a situation where Caesar and Pompey, who was related to Octavian through Octavian’s maternal grandfather, would remain in friendly political terms.
 
I think that the more 'easy' way (one that was foreseen and planned by Cesar) would be to maintain the Caesar-Pompeyo alliance and of course their family relation through Julia, Caesar's daughter.
TTL 'only' needy key change to OTL that would be necessary, besides of her survival, it is that her first and/or second pregnancy be successful and of course her son's survival.
Her continued survival per itself would grant that would continue the alliance within Caesar and Pompey, and with both working together the Optimates senatorial faction would be hopeless to obstruct and or try to undermine, successful their political position.
 
Assume the following:

Relations between Caesar and the Senate do not deteriorate so badly, and he never marches on Rome. He standa for election, wins, and pursues a distinguished career, but never rises to anything like Dictator. He dies of old age, the leading man of his generation, having enacted many needed reforms.
If I understand this correctly, by the deterioration of relations, you're referring to the events that led to the crossing of the Rubicon. But, the conflict wasn't between Caesar and the Senate, it was between Caesar and Pompey. These were two Alpha Males clashing over leadership of the pack and there's no way it could be avoided. I suppose some sort of compromise might have been reached, perhaps yet another triumvirate, but it would have only been a temporary cease fire. It was inevitable that one was going to destroy the other. The winner was going to become the sole de facto ruler of Rome.
 
If I understand this correctly, by the deterioration of relations, you're referring to the events that led to the crossing of the Rubicon. But, the conflict wasn't between Caesar and the Senate, it was between Caesar and Pompey. These were two Alpha Males clashing over leadership of the pack and there's no way it could be avoided. I suppose some sort of compromise might have been reached, perhaps yet another triumvirate, but it would have only been a temporary cease fire. It was inevitable that one was going to destroy the other. The winner was going to become the sole de facto ruler of Rome.

I think we're getting hung up on the individual politics here. There's dozens of different ways that the end result could be as I suggest. This isn't a question of 'how do we avoid the Civil War' but 'if the Civil War is avoided, how does history view Caesar?' In other words, if he's just a great politician and general, and not a man whose very name would go on to be a title for monarchs across the centuries, how do we regard him?
 
I think we're getting hung up on the individual politics here. There's dozens of different ways that the end result could be as I suggest. This isn't a question of 'how do we avoid the Civil War' but 'if the Civil War is avoided, how does history view Caesar?' In other words, if he's just a great politician and general, and not a man whose very name would go on to be a title for monarchs across the centuries, how do we regard him?

But the how determines the answer to your question.

For example, if Caesar politically surrenders to Pompey’s will as Pompey OTL wanted him to, then Caesar may be remembered as a kind of Lucullus.

If Caesar snatches from Pompeybabkind of agreement between equals, then he would be remembered like one of the great many imperatives of the 3rd century and early second century BC.
 
Top