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?
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?