Julius Caesar's Conquests if he wasn't Assassinated ?

I once read somewhere that if Julius Caesar was not assasinated, he would have invaded the Parthian Empire, to avenge the Roman defeat there at Carrhae under Crassus. But then, it also said that he planned to march north from Parthia and invade Scythia, then invade Germania from the east!! How accurate is this claim, and could the Romans under Caesar acheive this seemingly impossible task? Personally I think that if anyone could do it, it will be him, but I am not sure about whether the political situation at Rome will remain stable enough for this to happen.

What do you guys think? Could he have done this? And, what would be the maximum amount of land that he could have conquered plausibly in your opinion?

And this is my first official thread, so please tell me when I'm doing something wrong.:)
 
I once read somewhere that if Julius Caesar was not assasinated, he would have invaded the Parthian Empire, to avenge the Roman defeat there at Carrhae under Crassus. But then, it also said that he planned to march north from Parthia and invade Scythia, then invade Germania from the east!! How accurate is this claim, and could the Romans under Caesar acheive this seemingly impossible task? Personally I think that if anyone could do it, it will be him, but I am not sure about whether the political situation at Rome will remain stable enough for this to happen.

What do you guys think? Could he have done this? And, what would be the maximum amount of land that he could have conquered plausibly in your opinion?

And this is my first official thread, so please tell me when I'm doing something wrong.:)
I don't think I've ever heard from the sources that Caesar planned on such a task after invading Parthia. So I am skeptical that he would try to such a thing. We know that Caesar was about to embark on two definite campaigns. First, he would go North to take on the Dacians under Burebista, who had sided against him in the civil war, and then he planned on invading Parthia. Though I'm not sure what exactly his goals were in either campaign(whether or not he planned for total conquest against both for instance), I've very little doubt that he would be up to the challenge, especially with more resources and men then he ever had before.

As for the political situation, I really don't see it as problem for a living Caesar. Regardless of whether the plot fails and Caesar deals with assassins directly, or even if he just avoids the assassination attempt and leaves Rome none the wiser, who is going to directly challenge him on the battlefield at this point? Who's going to revolt against him? And who in their right mind would support anyone who tried?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
As for the political situation, I really don't see it as problem for a living Caesar. Regardless of whether the plot fails and Caesar deals with assassins directly, or even if he just avoids the assassination attempt and leaves Rome none the wiser, who is going to directly challenge him on the battlefield at this point? Who's going to revolt against him? And who in their right mind would support anyone who tried?

Sextus Pompey, for one. And he would be no easy man to kill.
 
Sextus Pompey, for one. And he would be no easy man to kill.
Oh? And Caesar has the entire rest of the empire at his disposal alone, with no rivals he has to share power with. Without the chaos that followed Caesar's assasination in OTL, I don't see how Sextus could have risen to be powerful enough to be a serious threat to Caesar's Rome. Besides, Sextus was no Caesar in terms of skill.
 
Oh? And Caesar has the entire rest of the empire at his disposal alone, with no rivals he has to share power with. Without the chaos that followed Caesar's assasination in OTL, I don't see how Sextus could have risen to be powerful enough to be a serious threat to Caesar's Rome. Besides, Sextus was no Caesar in terms of skill.

No rivals among those we already know about, but Rome had shown time and again that it operated under some political version of Newton's law of motion. Caesar's assassination and the subsequent civil wars were later used as a pragmatic/ethical argument for authoritative orthodoxy, and even then it was often dicey. Without Caesar as a martyr to the evils of distributed power, I think it's inevitable that challengers will arise. Hell, the Octavian/Caesarian situation is probably pretty inflammable given enough time.
 

Red Orm

Banned
Will never cease to remind me of this gem.

caesaroptimate.png
 
No rivals among those we already know about, but Rome had shown time and again that it operated under some political version of Newton's law of motion. Caesar's assassination and the subsequent civil wars were later used as a pragmatic/ethical argument for authoritative orthodoxy, and even then it was often dicey. Without Caesar as a martyr to the evils of distributed power, I think it's inevitable that challengers will arise. Hell, the Octavian/Caesarian situation is probably pretty inflammable given enough time.
Again who? Just saying it would isn't an argument. On Octavian/ Caesarian, how is that going to "blow up?" Firstly, even if Caesarian was caesar's kid( a big if), he is not a Roman. And Octavian is not caesar's presumed heir. The only reason he was able to get anywhere after caesar's death is because he was adopted post mortem in Caesar's will as heir, and hence had whatever legitimacy that provided( along with the huge fortune). Otherwise, he is just a kid at this point with no political or military experience.
 
I never actually got the plans of the Parthian campaign. Why did Caesar plan to invade via Armenia instead of via Mesopotamia? And what was the ultimate goal? Recovering Rome's honor and lost standards? Gain territories? Conquer the entire Empire and equal Alexander the Great? Because the most I can see Rome taking is what Trajan conquered.
 
I never actually got the plans of the Parthian campaign. Why did Caesar plan to invade via Armenia instead of via Mesopotamia? And what was the ultimate goal? Recovering Rome's honor and lost standards? Gain territories? Conquer the entire Empire and equal Alexander the Great? Because the most I can see Rome taking is what Trajan conquered.

You say those causes for war as if they don't make sense. Within the context of the times any one of those was enough reason to start a war with Parthia, all three and it's practically mandatory.
 
I never actually got the plans of the Parthian campaign. Why did Caesar plan to invade via Armenia instead of via Mesopotamia? And what was the ultimate goal? Recovering Rome's honor and lost standards? Gain territories? Conquer the entire Empire and equal Alexander the Great? Because the most I can see Rome taking is what Trajan conquered.
Why is invading through Armenia a strange idea to you?
 

Oceano

Banned
I never actually got the plans of the Parthian campaign. Why did Caesar plan to invade via Armenia instead of via Mesopotamia? And what was the ultimate goal? Recovering Rome's honor and lost standards? Gain territories? Conquer the entire Empire and equal Alexander the Great?

TAKE OVER THE WORLD
 
TAKE OVER THE WORLD

The only honorable goal.

But honestly, although the idea of campaigning to take over Dacia, Parthia, Scythia, and then go back over and conquer Germania all for Rome sounds like the most impossible thing ever, if anybody could have done it. And I mean anybody ever it was Julius Caesar.

He was a military genius leading an advanced veteran army with enough charisma to keep them going and a pragmatic enough approach to rule that he could probably set up puppet states that would remain loyal until the end of his reign (maybe longer but that's doubtful). He was the most competent man in the most powerful position of one of the most powerful empires in the Ancient World. Anything like that which could have been achievable could have been achieved by him.
 
I am not knowledgable in this area but I have to ask. Would Caesar trust anybody enough to leave them in Rome while he is out fighting? I would have thought he would stay close to the center of power with a loyal legion or two to make sure.
Of course he would not send anybody else out to conquer lest they become a rival.
 
I am not knowledgable in this area but I have to ask. Would Caesar trust anybody enough to leave them in Rome while he is out fighting? I would have thought he would stay close to the center of power with a loyal legion or two to make sure.
Of course he would not send anybody else out to conquer lest they become a rival.

He always seemed to trust Mark Anthony (Marcus Antonius), who was Caesar's Master of the Horse (basically means right hand man for some reason). The problem is that apparently the Roman people hated Antony so much the first time Caesar left him in charge of Rome that he was chased out of the city.
 
Top