julius Caesars daughter is born a son

Would Pompey truly be willing to marry Atia? His wives (save for Antistia and her special circumstances) seem to have come from the best of the roman aristocracy: Aemilia Scaura, Mucia Tercia, Julia Caesaris and even Cornelia Metella. Atia, despite the link to Caesar, seems a pretty minor option in comparison.

Pompeia would certainly be the more reasonable match either for Caesar or Caesar the Younger, as she was between 15 to 20 by the time of the First Triumvirate (a son of Caesar being born from his marriage to Cornelia Cinna would be perfect there).

Another fascinating alternative for a son, would be Caesar marrying Servilia Cepionis after her husband Silanus's death in 62 BC, and having a son before he departs for Gaul. Not only this Caesar Minor would have almost unmatched ancestry as descendant of the Julii Caesares and the Servili Cepionis, he would be about sixteen by the time of the Ides of March if they do happen, and would also be Brutus's half brother.

Atia will still be Caesar's niece with a patrician mother and a father from a plebeian senatorial gens. Sure her background is not the same of Julia (who descended from two patrician family) but she will be more on less on the the level of Mucia (who had from both sides of family plebeian cobsularis gentes)and sure on much higher level of Antistia (who came from a plebeian senatorial gens without high political connection).
 
I disagree. Mucia Tertia sure came from a plebeian family, but from a very prestigious one that had been part of the very few families that had remained in the very heart of power for a century (basically from 175 on), with great consular figures.

Sue was a parent of the Caecilii Metelli, of the Licinii Crassi Divites. Make no mistake : if Pompey married her just after his previous wife Aemilia died in childbirth, it's because Mucia was from a very prestigious and very well connected house that renewed his alliance (he was an upstart whose father was very hated) with the core of the sullan oligarchy, especially with the Metelli.

There is no possible comparison that stands between the Mucii Scaevolae and the Atii Balbi (who were themselves distant italian parents of the Pompeii).
 
I disagree. Mucia Tertia sure came from a plebeian family, but from a very prestigious one that had been part of the very few families that had remained in the very heart of power for a century (basically from 175 on), with great consular figures.

Sue was a parent of the Caecilii Metelli, of the Licinii Crassi Divites. Make no mistake : if Pompey married her just after his previous wife Aemilia died in childbirth, it's because Mucia was from a very prestigious and very well connected house that renewed his alliance (he was an upstart whose father was very hated) with the core of the sullan oligarchy, especially with the Metelli.

There is no possible comparison that stands between the Mucii Scaevolae and the Atii Balbi (who were themselves distant italian parents of the Pompeii).

I was not making comparision between the status of the Mucii Scaevolae and that of the Atii Balbi, because is obviously who the firsts one are of a much higher rank than the seconds. My comparison was between Mucia and Atia (who had patrician blood from her mother side and was the niece of the de facto leader of the Populares and Pontifex Maximus). At the time of Atia's first wedding (around 70 BC) her uncle was not an important man and she had not influential relatives (being the great niece of Marius' wife was not useful at that time) but in 59 Caesar was Pontifex Maximus, Consul of the year and a well know and respected general, orator and politician and a very important member of the Senate and so Atia was a very desiderable bride for her family connection (like Mucia was at the time of her wedding with Pompey)
 
Don't forget that, although then were patricians, the Julii Caesares were third rank nobles that just rebuilt a rather Nice political position through a very lucky alliance with Marius while he was not yet the popular national hero and first citizen of his time.

It is out Caesar who, through unparalleled accomplishments, gave to the gens Julia the importance which we give It today. Before Caesar, the Julii Caesares did not matter much.
 
eh, what? Gens Julii was one of the most ancient gens in rome, the earliest note of them being in the myth of Romulus (Proculus Iulius being the one bringing word to Rome that Romulus had died and ascended) and certainly by the time of Tullus Hostilus (~650bc), and had their previous high mark in 490-430, but by 100bc the family was a mere shadow of its former self.
 
This is legend. The Julian and the Servilian clans were alban clans integrated to the roman city under the mythical reign of Tullus Hostilius, which means way after the supposed death of the supposed founded king Romulus. Roman aristocratic clans had a certain talent in forging a mythical past. Some were powerful enough to invent fallen ancestors whom then said were consuls in the first years of the Republic.

Only the most ancient and most powerful clans that had always had a major part in power did not need this kind of falsification : then precisely were the major patrician gentes (the 5 I mentioned plus the Manlii that was the closest to the 5 major clans). The Claudii even took pride in their foreign origines and did not try to bise these origins.

And the Servilian clan was by car the most important of the two, untill out Julius Caesar revealed himself as the great est and most talented roman aristocrat ever and made his name immortal, as Ronald Symétrie splendidly wrote.

Just consider this : in the 275 years following the adoption of the licinian-sextian laws, there were but 2 consulships of the Julii.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Doesn't the location of Caesar's son at certain important dates has the potential to create butterflies. Caesar might be unwilling to cross his Rubicon if said son is within reach of people loyal to Pompey and friends.
 
Not on this specific matter. Caesar would have had far more than the necessary time to call his son close to him in Cisalpina before the crisis became too tense.

And the fact of having a son, whatever his age, never prevented a roman aristocrat from taking enormous risks : Tiberius Gracchus, Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, Marius, Sulla, Cinna and Lepidus are serious enough proof of it.
 
Not on this specific matter. Caesar would have had far more than the necessary time to call his son close to him in Cisalpina before the crisis became too tense.

And the fact of having a son, whatever his age, never prevented a roman aristocrat from taking enormous risks : Tiberius Gracchus, Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, Marius, Sulla, Cinna and Lepidus are serious enough proof of it.

You can be sure who an adult son of Caesar will be likely in Gallia with him and Mark Antony will take any young son of Caesar with him before left Rome (or sending someone to take the boy and bring him to his father)
 
Having a son would also change things because the conspirators of 44 and other roman politicians partisan of opponent of Caesars thought that Caesar had no son. Officially he had no son. It was an enormous surprise to learn, after his death, that he had adopted a son.
If they kenw that Caesar had a son, they would probably act differently and maybe try to murder father and son.
Everybody knew that it was the sacred duty of a son to avenge the murder of his father.

So paradoxically, you could have Caesar die sonless if both he and his son were victims of a successful murder attempt on the ides of March 44.

Yes, but political assassination of one man is damn risky, assassination of two persons at the same time is double difficult. The conspirators had hard time to catch Julius Caesar unprepared and without sufficient amount of his supporters to protect him. Now they have to catch two persons in similar circumstances - father and son - same place same time. Presuming that son is a man in his twenties with good military experience, he himself is a protection of his father.

If assassinating two men in different places at the same time... just imagine what one group of the conspirators is thinking: "But what if the other group has already failed or changed heart? Damn! we are doomed then!"

If the son had been likable like Caesar's OTL daughter, then the assassins would have had fewer supporters. Nice Roman boy, born by a nice Roman mother. He might smooth some eccentricities of the old guy and tone down some Roman fears, for example, saying: "Don't worry about Cleopatra, my dear friends, I assure you, this Egyptian whore will dearly pay for her arrogance, when my time comes!". The son might even show some respect to the republican values.

But on the other hand if the young rascal had been as dissolute as his father in his youth that wouldn't have made things much better, I guess. Sleeping with other men's wives might make it even worse.

It all depends on the personality of a son...
 
Suite right.

The question is : would Caesar's son have been at Rome with his father by the ides of March 44 or would he have been at Apollonia to prepare the eastern campaign ?

And I think the most probable answer is that his son would have been in Apollonia with the army like Octavian was OTL.

On the other hand, if his son had been at Rome, It is probable that he would have come to the Senate with his father and he then could quite easily have been stabbed to death. But as I previously mentioned, this does not seem to me the most probable solution.

But even before considering these 2 options, I think that if Caesar had had an adult roman son of his own blood, he would not have pissed off the optimates as much as he did with Cleopatra and some excessive monarchical hints that decided some optimates like Brutus to join the conspiracy of Cassius. So maybe there would not have been any attempt against Caesar's life on the ides of march.
 
Suite right.

The question is : would Caesar's son have been at Rome with his father by the ides of March 44 or would he have been at Apollonia to prepare the eastern campaign ?

And I think the most probable answer is that his son would have been in Apollonia with the army like Octavian was OTL.

On the other hand, if his son had been at Rome, It is probable that he would have come to the Senate with his father and he then could quite easily have been stabbed to death. But as I previously mentioned, this does not seem to me the most probable solution.

But even before considering these 2 options, I think that if Caesar had had an adult roman son of his own blood, he would not have pissed off the optimates as much as he did with Cleopatra and some excessive monarchical hints that decided some optimates like Brutus to join the conspiracy of Cassius. So maybe there would not have been any attempt against Caesar's life on the ides of march.

Didn't I say earlier in this thread he was in the east
 
Top