Possible Continuation of the Roman Republic?

I've got an idea buzzing around in my head for a possible Late Republic scenario that I am certain is at least highly implausible and possibly outright impossible (my gut instinct is that this can't work). However, before I drop the issue, I wanted to run it by a few people in case I missed anything.

The core premise is that, after having defeated Pompey, instead of having himself named dictator for life, Caesar instead chose to have himself named dictator for the duration of the next consular elections (in which he would run).

At this point, his popular support was significant enough that he was almost certain to win such an election and the general consensus seems to be that he wasn't particularly enthusiastic about a military coup in the first place, so I tend to think it's just barely plausible that he might prefer the extra layer of legitimacy of regular elections as opposed to an office as historically troubled as dictator (see Sulla).

The main issue here is whether or not this could be done (mostly) legally because if he has to force the issue, then there is no functional difference between this scenario and OTL.

So, assuming Caesar, for whatever reason (I can think of a few, but that's immaterial for now), becomes convinced that the above (subject to a great deal of tweaking) is the best course of action, could he have pulled something like this off? Mind you, he's an old man at this point, so he doesn't need to win as many elections as you might think to remain in power until death.

Oh, and I also need to think of how best to deal with the large, Egypt-shaped hole in this plan if this has any chance of going somewhere.

So, is there anything to this idea, or am I better off dropping it?
 
I've got an idea buzzing around in my head for a possible Late Republic scenario that I am certain is at least highly implausible and possibly outright impossible (my gut instinct is that this can't work). However, before I drop the issue, I wanted to run it by a few people in case I missed anything.

The core premise is that, after having defeated Pompey, instead of having himself named dictator for life, Caesar instead chose to have himself named dictator for the duration of the next consular elections (in which he would run).

At this point, his popular support was significant enough that he was almost certain to win such an election and the general consensus seems to be that he wasn't particularly enthusiastic about a military coup in the first place, so I tend to think it's just barely plausible that he might prefer the extra layer of legitimacy of regular elections as opposed to an office as historically troubled as dictator (see Sulla).

The main issue here is whether or not this could be done (mostly) legally because if he has to force the issue, then there is no functional difference between this scenario and OTL.

So, assuming Caesar, for whatever reason (I can think of a few, but that's immaterial for now), becomes convinced that the above (subject to a great deal of tweaking) is the best course of action, could he have pulled something like this off? Mind you, he's an old man at this point, so he doesn't need to win as many elections as you might think to remain in power until death.

Oh, and I also need to think of how best to deal with the large, Egypt-shaped hole in this plan if this has any chance of going somewhere.

So, is there anything to this idea, or am I better off dropping it?

We've had dozens of discussions on the survival of the Roman Republic. Basically, it's totally doomed before Caesar gets in power.

With Sulla and Marius you've established that any strong man can take over the state and do whatever he wants. You need a PoD that keeps them, or anyone like them, from taking power.
 
The Republic is only doomed with hindsight. What you really need to do is give it a century more, so it can start to figure out how to adapt to ruling an empire, rather than ruling a city state. It conquered everything so quickly that there was no time to adapt.

Will the Republic have more crises? Yes. Does that mean its doomed to end in a monarchy? I don't see how. If it survives Caesar, it at least has one more generation before the next potential crisis. And even then, there's any number of ways that crisis can play out that doesn't involve civil war. If it does lead to civil war, there's any number of ways the republican forces can win out that time as well, and then rinse and repeat. Saying its doomed is a perfect example of using the knowledge of what you know happened and projecting it onto events before then to say that X happening was inevitable.

To stabalize, the republic needs to reform. And there's no reason why this should be impossible. There were reform efforts being undertaken already. Most prominent among them was the law of 52 BCE, which placed a 5 year interim between assuming an office like a consulship or praetorship, and governing a province as a pro-praetor or pro-consul (so say you were elected consul for 45 BCE-you wouldn't be able to assume a province until 40 BCE). That was a significant reform in itself-it leaves a gap where the magistrate is now a private citizenship and can be prosecuted before he can control an army like Caesar. It also limits campaign spending, since candidates will less likely to go broke paying for elections if they won't be able to immediately make it back with a lucrative governorship (and in turn might slightly alleviate the insane extortion going on in the provinces).

Of course, reform is going to be slow and over time, but it's not impossible.
 
We've had dozens of discussions on the survival of the Roman Republic. Basically, it's totally doomed before Caesar gets in power.

With Sulla and Marius you've established that any strong man can take over the state and do whatever he wants. You need a PoD that keeps them, or anyone like them, from taking power.

Actually, saving the republic isn't what I had in mind. You see, I tend to agree with the idea that the republic was already dead by the time of Caesar's first consulship. No, what I had in mind was to diminish the precedent that the way to get the top job is through force. The eventual goal would be to have Rome turn into some form of elective monarchy (although possibly in all but name). To be honest, I just didn't think the title of the thread through.
 
Actually, saving the republic isn't what I had in mind. You see, I tend to agree with the idea that the republic was already dead by the time of Caesar's first consulship. No, what I had in mind was to diminish the precedent that the way to get the top job is through force. The eventual goal would be to have Rome turn into some form of elective monarchy (although possibly in all but name). To be honest, I just didn't think the title of the thread through.

Keep succession in the hands of Senators and not the army and you're set. If the aristocracy can keep its hold on the succession then their will can be done without military obstruction.
 
Keep succession in the hands of Senators and not the army and you're set. If the aristocracy can keep its hold on the succession then their will can be done without military obstruction.

Which is why Caesar becoming de-facto ruler of Rome needs to be legal. Legitimacy is the key here. The legal issue is what I'm struggling with. See, Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his army wasn't just an informal declaration of intent, it was actually illegal. With that in mind, the issue I have to deal with is whether that can be smoothed over without brute forcing the issue after Pompey is defeated. If not, then this can't work.

EDIT: To be honest, it doesn't necessarily need to be Caesar who does this. You'd just need a Roman general with an impressive enough career for whatever precedent they set to stick. To be honest, I just picked Caesar because he's the easiest.
 
Last edited:
Top