Sulla has Julius Caesar killed

Could all that infighting eventually lead to disintegration of the empire instead a successful move to autocracy as in OTL?
Oh, that might. The empire actually did disintegrate a few times. But not for too long.
The probability of it's permanent long time disintegration is extremely low - less than 1%. The Romans liked their country united. :) At least during this period.
And our POD (no Caesar) doesn't change the Roman mentality.

Which doesn't really matter unless Crassus goes off on a Parthian expedition or equivalent.
Why do you think Crassus went off on this Parthian expedition?
Because Crassus realized one simple thing - he desperately needed fresh military fame(glory) and a vast pool of Roman soldiers loyal and faithfull personally to him as their general who led them to victory.
Without it Crassus had no chances to win in the coming struggle for power in the Roman Empire.

They did OTL precisely because Pompey was an alternative to Caesar, if Pompey -is- the Caesar equivalent then they would not do it.
Well in my opinion in this ATL Pompey -is- the Pompey equivalent:D in the first part of the struggle for the Empire. Only this time he is a succesfull alternative Pompey, for he fights against some other general(s) who got prominence instead of non-existent Caesar.
And in the second part Pompey is the Octavian Augustus equivalent (they are actually very similar).
 
Oh, that might. The empire actually did disintegrate a few times. But not for too long.
The probability of it's permanent long time disintegration is extremely low - less than 1%. The Romans liked their country united. :) At least during this period.
And our POD (no Caesar) doesn't change the Roman mentality.

Yeah. I was thinking that Romans could spent all their energy and resources in fighting each other followed by a massive onslaught of Gauls to Italy, rebellions in provinces and resurgent Hellenistic kingdoms in the east.

Happy thoughts. :D
 
Why do you think Crassus went off on this Parthian expedition?
Because Crassus realized one simple thing - he desperately needed fresh military fame(glory) and a vast pool of Roman soldiers loyal and faithfull personally to him as their general who led them to victory.
Without it Crassus had no chances to win in the coming struggle for power in the Roman Empire.


The reason for this was that the two other triumvirs had amassed immense dignitas from their campaigns. Or to put it bluntly, he was looking for triumphs, not trying to build up a base to use to become king. Pompeys goal was always Pompey, to be the greatest. He had no need or ambition to become a dynast. The coming struggle as you call it came about because of a specific sett of events that will not happen if you remove Cesar. Its all about the dignitas and autocratias, not first to become king.
 
Clodius and his gang have a shot at power after all he was very popular with the plebs but he could have been working for Crassus when he was stirring up trouble for Pompey and Ceaser
Sure, Clodius and his gang could stir up some trouble.
But taking power in the empire for a long time? Without fame as a victorious general and without support of his faithfull legions? - No way!

Unless he goes off on another military adventure (which is unlikely given he did so simply to match Caesar and Pompey) Crassus's generalship means little. This is the richest man in Rome we are talking about. He can, and did use his money, power, and influence, to get to the top.
In the Roman Empire of this period you cannot get to the top and (which is more important) stay on the top without a real battle on the real battlefield.
(Actually there has to be a lot of military campaignes and even more battles.)
And that's why Crassus's generalship means a lot.
 
In the Roman Empire of this period you cannot get to the top and (which is more important) stay on the top without a real battle on the real battlefield.

Yes you can, and indeed most of the prominent late republicans were not military men.
Not a single one of the princeps (republican) were viri militares.
 
The probable consequences:
1) There is no such a brilliant, swift and final conquest of Gaul. Instead the Romans might have several campaignes during 50 or 100 years with some serious setbacks. And the probable result might be the conquest of 50-70% at best of what Caesar conquered.
2) Pompey becomes the princeps and the emperor of the same kind as Octavian Augustus. These guys were very similar in how they dealt with high power.
And after that history goes on mainly as in OTL.

But no complete conquest of Gaul means no conquest of Britain, which has huge butterflies.
 
Yes you can, and indeed most of the prominent late republicans were not military men.
Not a single one of the princeps (republican) were viri militares.
Sorry, my fault, I did not make myself clear.
When I said 'getting to the top' I didn't mean 'becoming a prominent late republican' or 'becoming a republican princeps'.
I meant 'becoming the sole head of the Roman Empire, in clearly non-republican sense'. Like Sulla once was, or like Gaius Marius in his seventh consulship. Or like princeps/emperor during principate.
 
Sorry, my fault, I did not make myself clear.
When I said 'getting to the top' I didn't mean 'becoming a prominent late republican' or 'becoming a republican princeps'.
I meant 'becoming the sole head of the Roman Empire, in clearly non-republican sense'. Like Sulla once was, or like Gaius Marius in his seventh consulship. Or like princeps/emperor during principate.

But both Sulla and Marius still grounded their domination in republican spirits for lack of a better word. And their struggle can be seen in the contexts of the opitmates vs populars conflict that was as a part of middle and late republican Rome. Its only with Caesar, and the increases of Hellenism that you get the King idea back, and even then it was never quit a king again.

Sulla became dictator to save the republic, and left office after his reforms,
Marius was old and likely insane, but none of them sett out to abolish the republic, reform, change, yes. Create a dynastic autocracy, no.

No if wiki is your source, you should try some proper ones instead.
Routlege`s Fall of the Republic and Roman world is a good start, as is Cambridge Ancient History volume 8 & 9.
 
If Crassus' Parthian campaign, turns out the same, Cassius, having saved the the army, could be much more prominent. Maye he would lead a gallic campaign.
 
Sorry, my fault, I did not make myself clear.
When I said 'getting to the top' I didn't mean 'becoming a prominent late republican' or 'becoming a republican princeps'.
I meant 'becoming the sole head of the Roman Empire, in clearly non-republican sense'. Like Sulla once was, or like Gaius Marius in his seventh consulship. Or like princeps/emperor during principate.

Except that's not what they wanted. Pompey never had any intentions of becoming emperor/king and neither did Crassus. Sure they gamed the system, but they wanted to have power in that system, not destroy it. Not even until Pommpey and Cato backed him into a corner did Caesar even have designs on being king/dictator/emperor.
 
Sure, Clodius and his gang could stir up some trouble.
But taking power in the empire for a long time? Without fame as a victorious general and without support of his faithfull legions? - No way!

Very true but I would assume Clodius would try to get a counsulship and then use it to get a generalship
 
But no complete conquest of Gaul means no conquest of Britain, which has huge butterflies.
It certainly does.
No Roman conquest of Britain might mean no Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. So Britain might stay mostly Celtic till nowadays like Ireland.

Except that's not what they wanted. Pompey never had any intentions of becoming emperor/king and neither did Crassus. Sure they gamed the system, but they wanted to have power in that system, not destroy it. Not even until Pommpey and Cato backed him into a corner did Caesar even have designs on being king/dictator/emperor.
It's funny - everybody liked senatorial republic as a system, no one wanted principate as a system, but republic died and principate came and stayed for good. :D
I think it was not because of someone's personal likes or dislikes that one system was changed with another system. I think it was inevitable, it was kind of natural phenomenon, consistent development of Roman social life.
 
Top