Julius Caesar never born?

pike

Banned
I think thing have run out steam here so i think i will wrap thing up how I see them with one last post.

With out Caesar there would be no Gallic war.
Gaul would most likely be conquered in stages with out Caesar genius. There was some doubt weather Gaul would be completely so conquer with out Caesar.
The political land scape would likely be much more stable for a while at least with out Caesars disruptive abilities.
Britain? Roman maybe never gets around to an invasion of Britain with out Caesars example to follow or all of Gaul conquered. Less over stretched Rome than OLT?
What would Britain look like with out Roman domination?
Egypt? No Idea. It would be better if Egypt was left alone because it was a important trade partner and its destruction had a long term negative impact on Rome???
Republic vs Empire debate was most interesting some agreed that the days of the Republic were numbered. Few thought that if there was no Gallic civil war caused by Caesar the Republican system would be able to survive more effectively than in OLT.

And many did not comment at all. Thank to those who showed enough interest to do so.:)
 
Last edited:
With out Caesar there would be no Gallic war.
Probably not.
Though, a conquest in Europe is likely and even a lesser skilled general could have conquered Pannonia.
Gaul would most likely be conquered in stages with out Caesar genius. There was some doubt weather Gaul would be completely so conquer with out Caesar.
The southern peoples and hegemons would have been likely too tied to roman trade to just get away with roman influence.
Even in the case where Helvetii could have formed a large hegemon with Aedui and Sequani, it's likely this hegemon would be sooner or later into roman sphere of influence.

That said, if hegemons continues to form that way, even in northern Gaul, instead of having a lot of independent peoples, you could have 10 gallic leagues making a conquest more difficult.

The political land scape would likely be much more stable for a while at least with out Caesars disruptive abilities.
I'm not sure about it : Rome doesn't lack of social agitators. The main question is if the next one would be from populist (mainly generals with loyal troops) or populars (issued from Rome itself, with roman popular class).
Britain? Roman maybe never gets around to an invasion of Britain with out Caesars example to follow or all of Gaul conquered. Less over stretched Rome than OLT?
Britiain, at least the south, is likely to been conquered IF Gaul is eventually conquered. For reasons of markets, trade way and possible links between brittons and troublesome gaul peoples.
What would Britain look like with out Roman domination?
Maybe more like Gaul with two centuries of lateness.
Egypt? No Idea. It would be better if Egypt was left alone because it was a important trade partner and its destruction had a long term negative impact on Rome???
Egypt is too troublesome to be left away. Rome needs a stable Egypt and Alexandria looks like too much a Commune of Paris would happen every 20 years.
Considering that Egypt was inherited like Pergama, but that Rome gave the throne to another, I would say Egypt annexation is really likely.
 
I disagree with some of the points made on here. I definitely think the Republic had to fall sooner or later, but the effects of removing Caesar are absolutely huge, at least for the first few decades after 63 BC.

Without Caesar, there's no First Triumvirate, meaning Pompey is left to cool his heels while Cato blocks his settlement of the East in the Senate, and while it's possible that Pompey might have resorted to blatant intimidation or ridiculous amounts of bribery to get it passed, he really wasn't the type for that. And without Caesar, Clodius doesn't get adopted as a plebeian, therefore can't be tribune and can't stir up the mob violence that paralyzes Rome to varying degrees between 59 and 52 BC. That's not to say that someone else couldn't have done it, but it's important to remember how much Clodius was motivated by personal factors like enmity of Cicero and the fact that respectable society was closed off to him after the Bona Dea incident: in other words, there's no clear historical trend that makes it inevitable that a demagogue like him would have arisen in this time.

These are the two major initial changes that come to mind; the rest of Caesar's impact pretty much follows from these. And without these, it's clear that the optimates remain in control of Rome for the foreseeable future. The problem is that the foreseeable future here isn't very large: OTL becomes quickly dominated by the civil wars and the rise of the Empire, and the effects of these are so all-encompassing that it's nearly impossible to imagine the specifics of what would have happened otherwise. We can be certain, I think, that the Republic as we know it wouldn't have existed past 25-50 AD at the latest, but wondering about how that would have happened is, unfortunately, to basically pull stories out of thin air. (Shameless plug: I'm currently writing a timeline that's actually somewhat similar to this. Caesar isn't removed, but there's no First Triumvirate and so his influence is weakened, ending up in a longer-lasting Republic.)

As for foreign policy, Gaul is going to become Roman eventually. Exposure to trade will gradually Romanize them, but more immediately, sooner or later someone like Caesar will conquer the area out of desire to win glory. Britain is less certain, as there's no clear benefit for conquering it except, of course, more glory. Egypt would almost certainly become directly ruled by Rome, but probably less dramatically than IOTL; possibly it would resemble the transformation of Judea from a puppet kingdom into a province. Further conquest in Germania is also possible, because the Republic's approach to foreign policy (I believe) tends to encourage aggression more than the Empire's, being more mercurial. So if the opportunity to conquer southern Germania arises while under the Republic, there's a good chance it would happen.

TL;DR Republic will last a little longer, but it's going to be completely transformed within the next few generations at most. It'll also end up conquering/annexing most if not all of the territories it had OTL. Things won't end up looking that different in the long run although the short-term changes will be huge.
 
For about fifty years before Caeser came to power Rome was dealing with one crisis after another; the Grachi, Saturnius, Marius, the Social wars, Sulla, Setorius, Clodius, Spartacus, and Pompey. Rome was unable to find stability because by that point it had become an oligarchy completely dominated by a few dozen elite families with the occasional demagogue (The Grachi, Saturnius, Clodius) trying to stir things and eventually being killed.

The real problem was that the people in control of the state devoted all their energies into fighting each other for a greater share of the gold and land they acquired. They had no real interest in taking care of the common citizen beyond providing cheap bread and free entertainments. They really only noticed the common folk when they were either hungry or being egged on by a tribune of the plebs.

They simply did not care about he problems of the common people.

How they treated their soldiers was a perfect example. They expected citizens to serve for as many years as they were needed, often overseas. They were expected to provide their own weapons and equipment, were paid a small wage, and if they were killed their widows received no pension. They might receive a share of booty, but only in the campaign they were on was successful and acquired a lot of treasure. In the meantime if they were small farmers and their farms fell into disrepair because they were away serving their country the lands could be confiscated. Upon completion of his service he was simply released and often forced to look for work because his farm had been bought up by a senator or other rich family for whom he had served.

The noble classes did feel an obligation to Rome; but to them Rome was an ideal and NOT the people who filled its streets. Marius was the first general to try and reward his poor soldiers by giving them land when they mustered out. it was both a way to reward the men, recruit soldiers, and rebuild the small farmer class that had been ground down since the second Punic war and Hannibal's devastation of the Italian countryside. Of course the conservatives who controlled the Senate fought him every step of the way because they wanted that land for themselves and not for the poor citizens who fought their wars for them.

In the eyes of the Senate loyalty flowed in only one direction.

The republic was doomed to fall because its leaders had deliberately betrayed the very people who had supported it.
 
Top