Julius Caesar warned

. Modern sources are simply people interpreting the ancient sources, after all. You get their *opinion* on what it all means.

They interpret it through researching that certain time period and using the facts assembled to make an educated estimation of what is and isn't true. Certainly not just their opinion.
 
Shall we presume that Octavian was sent ahead towards Parthia for no reason?

He was sent ahead to the Balkans. That makes it look like Caesar's first intention was to deal with Burebista in Dacia. We are not doubting that he was going to invade Parthia, just that he had the intention of conquering Parthia and marching all the way to India. Caesar is not megalomaniacal.
 
Excuse me, but there's a world of difference between proving physics and proving the plans of a human being. Its ludicrous to compare the two. Again, if you can't provide anything sources close to Caesar, then we're just going to have to go with the sources closest. Modern sources are simply people interpreting the ancient sources, after all. You get their *opinion* on what it all means.

And again, none of this means that we have to accept that Caesar would just cut a swath through Parthia like a knife through hot butter and take a bath in the Indus, before subduing every horse lord in Central Asia.
What historians, other than Plutarch, mention that Caesar wanted to conquer all of Parthia? Surely not Appian or Cassius Dio? Also, you must ask yourself, why would Caesar want to conquer the whole Parthian Empire. You can't say because he admired Alexander The Great and wept that he could not do what he did. Every Roman admired Alexander The Great and wanted to emulate him. That doesn't mean every Roman had dreams of reconquering his empire. At most, he would want to bag Armenia and Mesoptoamia.

Remember, he is 56 years old, and he's not in the best (certainly not bad) condition. Plus, he can hardly afford to be away from Rome for an extremely long length- conquering the Parthian Empire could keep him occupied for a decade, and he can not afford to leave Rome for that amount of time. Plus, he has no need to conquer the Parthian Empire-he has enough military glory already, and knocking out Burebista and returning the legionary standards lost at Carrhae would be more than enough to add to that.
 
It is obvious to me, that Caesar planned to attack Dacia and Parthia. However, looking to his age and health, I doubt, that he intended more than pacify these borders by a kind of client-king or peace treaty after a won war. Those military actions are overrated anyways. Just running once around the Black Sea conquering the entire Near-East and Europe is fully nuts and leads to nothing.

I am more afraid about what happens in Rome, if Caesar is absent for a few years. Well, he can come back shortly during winter, while on the Dacian campaign.

Will the roman aristocrats accept lifetime dictatorship longterm? I doubt they will without a big slaughter like the proscriptions of the 2nd triumvirate.

How would Caesar deal with succession? Will he finally try to implement a real roman monarchy and replace the dictator by a rex?

What further necessary political reforms he planned?
 
Last edited:
Well, I cannot help but wonder would Caesar legitimize Caesarion?

Obviously, Cleo wouldn't marry Mark Anthony...
 
It is obvious to me, that Caesar planned to attack Dacia and Parthia. However, looking to his age and health, I doubt, that he intended more than pacify these borders by a kind of client-king or peace treaty after a won war. Those military actions are overrated anyways. Just running once around the Black Sea conquering the entire Near-East and Europe is fully nuts and leads to nothing.

I am more afraid about what happens in Rome, if Caesar is absent for a few years. Well, he can come back shortly during winter, while on the Dacian campaign.

Will the roman aristocrats accept lifetime dictatorship longterm? I doubt they will without a big slaughter like the proscriptions of the 2nd triumvirate.

How would Caesar deal with succession? Will he finally try to implement a real roman monarchy and replace the dictator by a rex?

What further necessary political reforms he planned?

Things could get hectic while he was gone. While he was away in Spain, North Africa, and Egypt, Antony, Dolabella, and others caused a lot of trouble.

I don't really think he intended to make his position hereditary. I see Caesar more as a person who intended to ultimately keep the republic-he was far more conservative than people give him credit for. It also shows in his will-Octavian, Antony, and the Brutus brothers among others were all given a stake in his will.

Even if he did intend to make a hereditary monarchy, I doubt it would last. He was almost 60 by now, and I'd give him another decade at most. That's not enough to really cement his position, especially since he is going to be away on campaign for at least a few more years.

Now what happens on his death? I think the republic has a much better chance of limping on in to the next generation. There are no conspirators to avenge, and people forget the legions were loyal to Caesar and his memory, not necessarily to any of his subbordinates. I think something like we saw at the death of Sulla would happen. Octavian doesn't have much chance to catapult himself to power, and Antony has to compete now with his rival Dolabella, and the Brutus brothers, Cassius Longinus, Lepidus, etc. Sextus Pompey will likely be pardoned by the Senate.

The Caesarion's weren't some cohesive group, and it was really only the common goal of avenging Caesar's murderer that kept them loosely together in the first place. They all had their own individual agendas. I think the conspirators destroyed the republic by killing Caesar, far from saving it.
 
Top