What if Brutus wins at Phillippi?

So the battle of Phillippi was the last stand of the "Liberators" the conspirators who assassinated Julius Caesar. They were up against the second triumviirate, lead by Marcus Antonius, and Octavian. The first battle resulted in a draw more or less other than the suicide of Cassius. Brutus was less experienced than Cassius, and when the final engagement came, his attack was repulsed.


So what if, on the first battle, instead of being a draw, Brutus and Cassius gain a victory. On the same day as the first battle of Philippi, the Republican fleet is able to intercept and destroy the triumvirs' reinforcements (two legions and other troops and supplies led by Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus) as they did IOTL.

In a much worse position than they were already, the triumvir's troops morale is at its lowest ebb, and when the second battle eventually comes, it is a complete victory for Brutus and Cassius. Antony, Octavian, (and if you want, Agrippa) are killed or committ suicide.


What effects would this have? Lepidus is still in Italy mind you, so the triumvirs aren't completely destroyed, but you have to think the political situation in Rome once the defeat of Antony and Octavian reach the city, will be too much for Lepidus to handle.
 
Lepidus would have very quickly made peace.

Brutus, Cassius and the rest return to Rome victorious but all the problems are still there. You still have massive corruption by the Senators and elite. You have a growing urban faction who loved Caesar and believed in his reforms. Reforms that are going to be reversed with a vengeance by the conservatives who won't even admit there is a problem, let alone try to fix it.

The conservatives will clamp down and try to impose order and restore 'their' Rome. A Rome that hasn't really existed since at least the days of Marius, or maybe the Grachi. They will probably keep order for twenty years or so, until a new general or reformer brings the masses down on them. The republic was already broken, there was no way it was going to work in that form any more. Change was inevitable, but Brutus and his group were the very last to admit that.
 
I seriously doubt it.

Brutus and Cassius dressed up their actions as being 'Liberators' but the fact is they represented conservative elements who opposed pretty much everything Caeser tried to do. They did not want land reform. They did not want to reward the veterans or in any way empower the masses. Their political agenda from beginning to end was to restore all the old privileges of the senate and the wealthy. If they win a decisive military victory they are not going to compromise. They are going to force through the laws that suit them and intimidate any remaining liberal voice into silence. And they will do it proclaiming they are defending the ancient rights of the TRUE Romans.

Those leaders simply did not give a damn about the poor except when they were rioting or when bread was scarce.
 
I seriously doubt it.

Brutus and Cassius dressed up their actions as being 'Liberators' but the fact is they represented conservative elements who opposed pretty much everything Caeser tried to do. They did not want land reform. They did not want to reward the veterans or in any way empower the masses. Their political agenda from beginning to end was to restore all the old privileges of the senate and the wealthy. If they win a decisive military victory they are not going to compromise. They are going to force through the laws that suit them and intimidate any remaining liberal voice into silence. And they will do it proclaiming they are defending the ancient rights of the TRUE Romans.

Those leaders simply did not give a damn about the poor except when they were rioting or when bread was scarce.

Oh I agree that they only cared for keeping the aristocracy and themselves and didn't give a crap about the poor. I'm happy they lost, I was just trying to see what would happen had they won.
 
How would these people respond to a Liberator victory- Sextus Pompey, Quintus Labienus and Lucius Antonius
Labienus was allied with the liberators. Pompey IIRC controlled the fleet.

Parthia was friendly with the liberators and cleopatra would side with whomever seemed to be winning.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I seriously doubt it.

Brutus and Cassius dressed up their actions as being 'Liberators' but the fact is they represented conservative elements who opposed pretty much everything Caeser tried to do. They did not want land reform. They did not want to reward the veterans or in any way empower the masses. Their political agenda from beginning to end was to restore all the old privileges of the senate and the wealthy. If they win a decisive military victory they are not going to compromise. They are going to force through the laws that suit them and intimidate any remaining liberal voice into silence. And they will do it proclaiming they are defending the ancient rights of the TRUE Romans.

Those leaders simply did not give a damn about the poor except when they were rioting or when bread was scarce.

The implication that Caesar did give a damn about the poor is quite funny.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I seriously doubt it.

Brutus and Cassius dressed up their actions as being 'Liberators' but the fact is they represented conservative elements who opposed pretty much everything Caeser tried to do. They did not want land reform. They did not want to reward the veterans or in any way empower the masses. Their political agenda from beginning to end was to restore all the old privileges of the senate and the wealthy. If they win a decisive military victory they are not going to compromise. They are going to force through the laws that suit them and intimidate any remaining liberal voice into silence. And they will do it proclaiming they are defending the ancient rights of the TRUE Romans.

Those leaders simply did not give a damn about the poor except when they were rioting or when bread was scarce.

The implication that Caesar did give a damn about the poor is quite funny.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Once Cato and Cicero are gone, it's certainly too late to restore the Republic. One could argue that it had been doomed for a century already, but that's probably going too far.
 
I would say the republic was dead at least since the days of Marius and Sulla. You had landless, urban poor who the Senate wanted to ignore except when they needed warm bodies for the legions. Rome was originally founded, and her armies manned, by small farm owners. This 'middle class' had a strong interest in defending the state and gave the republic stability. These farmers were largely ruined when Hannibal was ravaging Italy, and others lost their farms when they were forced to serve ten or more years in legions stationed out in the provinces.

So men who would have been farmers were ruined and had to try to find work in cities, where they became poor and desperate and felt no real loyalty to the Senate. The Senators, in turn, did not want land reforms that could have restored this 'middle class' because they were the ones who were buying up the farmland. They put their own good ahead of what was best for the country and society.

When Marius set the precedent of recruiting his own troops and providing them land when they left his service he set a dangerous example. You had soldiers looking to their general, and not the government, to care for their needs. Once the people began having more faith in individual generals than in the government, the republic was doomed.
 
Last edited:
would Marc Anthony and Octavia survive or do they die? because if not wouldn't they be focal points for those who still supported Caesar? or am Over estimating the support that They would still have because of Caesar?
 
would Marc Anthony and Octavia survive or do they die? because if not wouldn't they be focal points for those who still supported Caesar? or am Over estimating the support that They would still have because of Caesar?

I said in the op they were killed or committed suicide. So yes they are dead.

Another thing I was thinking. Could Brutus and Cassius strike a deal with Lepidus as to creating a third triumvirate?
 
Another thing I was thinking. Could Brutus and Cassius strike a deal with Lepidus as to creating a third triumvirate?
IIRC Brutus and Cassius already started to behave like triumvires before the final battle. They did not look too republican. They even struck the coins with their faces and names on. Which definitely was undemocratic.
IMO they would defeat Lepidus (or more likely Lepidus would come to terms with them). So they would form either a duumvirate or triumvirate.
Anyway, republic is doomed. They might only try to imitate it the way Augustus Octavianus did.
 
IIRC Brutus and Cassius already started to behave like triumvires before the final battle. They did not look too republican. They even struck the coins with their faces and names on. Which definitely was undemocratic.
IMO they would defeat Lepidus (or more likely Lepidus would come to terms with them). So they would form either a duumvirate or triumvirate.
Anyway, republic is doomed. They might only try to imitate it the way Augustus Octavianus did.
So in the event of a triumvirate between the three, who would be in the best position? I assume Lepidus would be in the same boat he was with Antony and Octavian, just the third guy that can be cast aside when he's not needed anymore.

Cassius is superior to Brutus militarily wise, but Brutus has the long family history, and IIRC, would do better in Rome politically than Cassius.
 
Top