Julius Caesar Dies During Gallic War

[Dan Carlin]

I thought there must be a thread about this...but I searched and could not find one.

What if Caesar had died fighting the Gauls? There are accounts of him fighting in the thick of the melee at times and exposing himself to death...it sure could have happened (one stray Javelin...).

I keep going over in my head how things would have changed if he had perished before the whole "Crossing the Rubicon" part of his career.

If he dies...what changes? I assume the Republic still goes away (maybe a bit later...) but maybe there is no Octavian succession (and boy...the historical dominoes really start to fall at that point...don't they?)

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

To say nothing of what happens to the Gauls...

Italy would probably become a granary for their eastern provinces.

 

[stevep]

To say nothing of what happens to the Gauls...

Italy would probably become a granary for their eastern provinces.

ES

I highly doubt the latter. While the Gauls were formidable individual warriors they were very difficult to control and organise. Even in defence of their independence Vercingetorix had great trouble getting the tribes to work together. Also, although it had serious internal problems Roman Italy had a formidable military machine, already experienced at expansion and with strong internal incentives to do so along with an awesome pool of manpower.

There's an outside chance that with the right circumstances Roman might not invade and conquer Gaul a bit later, although I think it unlikely. Given that Caesar used as one of his initial excuses for invasion to support 'friendly' Gallic tribes against Germanic incursions you might have seen a greater German influence earlier in Gaul's history. [Although I think there is some dispute how the nationality of several of the tribes involved in those conflicts]. I still think however that within a generation at the most Rome will be back and will win. However what the butterflies will be without Caesar could be pretty dramatic in the shorter term.

Steve

 

[Chengar Qordath]

As to the Gauls, a lot of what happens depends on when Caeser dies. If he dies at one of the low points of the war the invasion might be called off completely, while if he dies at Alesia not much changes since the Gauls will still lose the battle and be broken.

If the invasion fails, it is only a matter of time before another ambitious Roman general invades Gaul, just to prove his greatness. Pompey becomes the de-facto ruler of the Roman state, but he is probably more likely to be a second Sulla than to push for the massive changes wrought by Caeser. If Pompey does not establish something like the principate, it is probably only a matter time before someone else does, unless the Roman Republic falls apart in the meantime.

 

[Max Sinister]

Maybe Pompey follows Caesar on his tracks, to finish what the other one started. Afterwards, he'll be hailed as the greatest imperator ever. Don't know what's next - the Parthians maybe, to avenge Crassus?

 

[Dan Carlin]

Well...you wonder if the Roman public would have been as receptive to a Pompay as they were to Caesar. He was a silver tongued Orator (Cicero was supposed to have asked "Does anyone speak better than Caesar?") who courted the middle and lower classes. He had popular appeal.

I agree with the rest of you that Gaul was doomed eventually regardless. But I think it is possible the Roman Republic survives in some form for some length of time if Caesar dies in Gaul.

He may have shunned the crown publically several times...but he seems to have opened the door in the Roman public's mind to the idea of dictatorship.

 

[LordKalvan]

Maybe Pompey follows Caesar on his tracks, to finish what the other one started. Afterwards, he'll be hailed as the greatest imperator ever. Don't know what's next - the Parthians maybe, to avenge Crassus?

Pompey stepping in to avenge Caesar (and to demonstrate that he's the biggest and meaniest general in all history) would be a given for me.
No way that the war would end with a Roman defeat either: the story of the Cimbri and Teutons, which happened just a generation or so before the Gallic wars, would be repeated. The Romans were defeated 5 times in a row, and lost tens of thousand of men; however ultimately the Teutons were defeated at Aquae Sextiae and the Cimbri were toasted at Vercellae. Both tribes became history.

Caesar's death would certainly change history: it is unlikely that there will be the spate of civil wars that marked the last years of Caesar and the ascent of Octavian (who is quite too young at the time of Alesia, in any case).
The principatus might still come up, with pompey and his sons, though.

 

[ninebucks]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Caesar had died during the Gallic Wars, I don't think there would ever be a Roman Empire. I think the Republic would never really exert much power outside the Italian Peninsula, but would manage to maintain its "liberal" "democratic" "republican" ideals untill its eventual downfall, and we, sat here, typing in some language half way between Dalmatian, Uighur, and Arabic will be speak of Rome in the same light as which we speak of Athens.

 

[Zedar]

I agree that Pompey would continue the campaign against the Gauls, as he is the only obvious candidate to lead the armies. None of Caesar's subordinates had sufficient political pull at this stage to get themselves placed in control (I think one would at least need proconsular imperium, which none of them were entitled to by my recollection).

Pompey of course is a good general, but not as good as Caesar (in my understanding), so I would assume he wouldn't finish the campaign nearly as quickly as Caesar. Also taking into account the fact that he needs time to reorganize the army, by the time Pompey does finish the campaign he would be into his sixties and well past his prime, and thus I think that any future dictatorship is unlikely to be established under his leadership.

This of course raises the question of who *does* take control of roman politics, which clearly can't survive in republican form for too much longer. Too many precedents had been established by this stage for anyone to take republican forms particularly seriously. The obvious contender is Mark Antony, who would, if he achieved supremacy, institute a much more autocratic system than what was seen under Julius or Augustus.

The other main option is Pompey's sons, though their fate depends on whether or not the optimates (Cato and co) turn against pompey while he is away, for he was only ever really an ally of convenience. Once their common enemy (Caesar) was gone, I don't think they would have had any qualms about betraying him if they thought it would save the republic.

 

[Merrick]

Who inherits Caesar's legions? The Senate may award the command, but who will the soldiers follow? Pompey, after all, got his start by raising an army from his father's loyal veterans.
If it's Mark Antony, he'll be a player, but I don't think he had the political connections to do what Caesar did. Most likely the aristocrats will try to play him off against Pompey - nice general, have a triumph, have the consulate, have a lucrative war/governorship somewhere overseas, leave running Rome to us.
I don't think Pompey will try to do a Sulla - he doesn't seem to have had much of a political vision, and if he'd wanted to reform Rome he'd have done it years earlier. His sons, on the other hand - I can see Sextus Pompieus as a potential despot.

I think that by the time of the Gallic Wars the Republic was too far gone to recover - politics in Rome was hopelessly corrupt and strongarming the government (by city bosses or ambitious generals) had become a tradition. Sooner or later, someone's going to march on Rome (Caesar wasn't the first). Or, just possibly, some military strongman will decide to sidestep Senate politics completely and set up an administration outside Rome. Antony & Cleopatra, rulling Rome from Egypt?

Oh, and ninebucks, by the time of the Gallic Wars, Rome controlled Italy, Sicily, almost all Spain, southern Gaul, Macedonia, Greece, most of Anatolia, Syria, Cyprus and North Africa - and had held overseas provinces for 100 years or more. The chance for a democratic republic in Italy had long gone.

 

[Alayta]

ES

I highly doubt the latter. While the Gauls were formidable individual warriors they were very difficult to control and organise. Even in defence of their independence Vercingetorix had great trouble getting the tribes to work together. Also, although it had serious internal problems Roman Italy had a formidable military machine, already experienced at expansion and with strong internal incentives to do so along with an awesome pool of manpower.

Steve

Thats what we would say about the mongols if there would not have been dschingis khan.

Why not a gallish Temudschin?
After the experience of danger, of beeing in defence against those stupid italians - they sould decide to fight them???

 

[MerryPrankster]

Chengar,

If Caesar is killed at Alesia, might Vercingetorix and his people be able to break out? There were some cases where the Gauls nearly broke the encirclement but it was Caesar's personal attention that stopped them.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Chengar,

If Caesar is killed at Alesia, might Vercingetorix and his people be able to break out? There were some cases where the Gauls nearly broke the encirclement but it was Caesar's personal attention that stopped them.

It probably depends on the exact circumstances of Caesar's death, but the Roman legions are pretty well disciplined with a clear chain of command, and Caesar's subordinates were hardly incompetent. Unless it is something really dramatic like Vercingetorix cutting Caesar down in a duel I doubt it would break the legions. If anything, I would think that given Caesar's personal magnetism and the connection he shared with his troops would make them all the more determined to win the battle in order to avenge their beloved commander's death. That would probably make up for the loss of his presence bolstering morale at any one location.

Winning the battle might be enough to springboard Marc Antony (or whoever Caesar's #2 at the battle was) into the start of a political career; avenging Caesar would be worth something to the masses after all, and the Senate will probably heap some honors on Caesar now that he's dead and politically harmless. The Senate might try to turn Antony into a tool against Pompey, which might result in another round of civil wars. The Senate is definately not going to like the Triumvirate being reduced to one member, so even if Pompey is not planning to follow Sulla's example the Senate might try to kill him off and force his hand.

IMO, the Roman Republic died with the Gracchi, which established the precedent for the use of physical force to deal with one's political opponents. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before an ambitious generals like Sulla and Marius (or later Caesar) used their armies to make themselves absolute rulers.

 

[Dan Carlin]

"Thats what we would say about the mongols if there would not have been dschingis khan. Why not a gallish Temudschin?"
---------------------------------------------------
Touche.

That's true for all the large barbarian confederations...isn't it?

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

Touche.

That's true for all the large barbarian confederations...isn't it?

I have officially entered pissed mode.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Gauls and the Mongols are two different things. Horse archers in large numbers are far more dangerous than the equivalent number of infantry, especially if said infantrymen lack discipline and coordination (even with Vercingetorix as the great leader, he still had problems controlling his subordinates).

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I have officially entered pissed mode.

If you have a problem with a post, respond to the post. Don't make idiotic non sequiturs.

 

[Dan Carlin]

The Gauls and the Mongols are two different things. Horse archers in large numbers are far more dangerous than the equivalent number of infantry, especially if said infantrymen lack discipline and coordination (even with Vercingetorix as the great leader, he still had problems controlling his subordinates).

Yeah...but the Steppe peoples were not really dangerous to settled societies until/unless they HAD a Jenghiz, Attila or Mao Dun. Yet, the weapons system was always formidable.

Great leaders are the wild card...aren't they? Look at the Jugurtha's of the world...he was fighting Imperial Romans with trash troops. Imagine if a truly great Gallic leader had emerged (Vercingetorix was just the best they had...we don't know how inherently GREAT he was...).

I mean, to think it could have made no difference is to discount the value of a gifted tactician...isn't it? You may have poorer troops...but they are still good if they hit legions in flank or rear, out-maneuver them, etc...aren't they?

Otherwise we are saying that the legions were just invincible, no matter how disadvantages a situation they were put in...and they were good...but they WERE beatable.

Give them a Hannibal and see what they could do...

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

If you have a problem with a post, respond to the post. Don't make idiotic non sequiturs.

Well, it was midnight. I'm responding now.

Touche.

That's true for all the large barbarian confederations...isn't it?

Calling the Celts barbarians is hardly accurate. Probably the Mongols too, but I don't know much about them.

The Gauls introduced soap to the Romans and Greeks. The "Roman" gladius was a Celtiberian invention.

I'm just a bit sick of people making blanket statements.

 

[monkey]

Wenever Julias Ceasar left Gaul to go back to politics in Rome the ocupying legions under subordinate generals generally got masacered, and then Ceasar would have to recruit new soldiers and come back to conquer the rebeling tribes all over again. So without Julias Ceaser who seemed to be particularly good at conquering Gauls I doubt Rome would be able get a firm hold on Gaul. Perhaps expanding northwards in a more piecemeal fasion never reaching the English chanel and getting overun by barbarians sooner.