What if Julius Caesar Survived Assassination on the Ides of March?

Nowhere; he'd probably go off and die (he was getting old) during his intended Parthian/Scythian campaigns.

The suggestion that he'd be made King of some Roman client-kingdom(s) is an interesting one, not sure how that'd work though.

Cleopatra was apparently pregnant at the time of his assassination; in this TL the baby would definitely survive (although it's possible that it did, and was a girl). Given Cleopatra's fertility it's likely she'd give him one or two more babies before his time on earth was up...No idea how Caesar surviving longer would affect their careers though.

Maybe he'd finally divorce Calpurnia and make Cleopatra a Roman citizen (like Herod and other client-kings)?
 
Assume there won't be another attempt. What would Caesar do with Rome?

There was an excellent (if somewhat optimistic) timeline based on exactly this premise, by esteemed member ericams2786. It started on page 35 of his rough draft and continued for another nine pages. I highly recommend it! Here's a link.

Essentially, Caesar initiated massive political reforms of the Roman Republic under Antony and Cicero, while he personally conquered Parthia, Thrace, and Germania.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
There was an excellent (if somewhat optimistic) timeline based on exactly this premise, by esteemed member ericams2786. It started on page 35 of his rough draft and continued for another nine pages. I highly recommend it! Here's a link.

Essentially, Caesar initiated massive political reforms of the Roman Republic under Antony and Cicero, while he personally conquered Parthia, Thrace, and Germania.

Cheers,
Ganesha

It will not be possible for Ceasar to conquer the east,the destruction of Crassus made that militarily obvious;the legion was a formation that still could be dominant in Europe,but in the vast expances of the East the missile cavalries were predominant and they would be for the next 1500 years,until the advent of gunpowder and the cannon
 
Last edited:
It will not be possible for Ceasar to conquer the east,the destruction of Crassus made that militarily obvious;the legion was a formation that still could be dominant in Europe,but in the vast expances of the East the missile cavalries were predominant and they would be for the next 1500 years,until the advent of gunpowder and the cannon

this is not necessarily true IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Cilician_Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Gindarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amanus_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#War_against_Parthia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ctesiphon_(198)

More often than not, it was the Romans that beat the Parthians and sacked their capital repeatedly. All the Parthians achieved was either dominance over Armenia or the repulsing of Roman invasions.
 
It will not be possible for Ceasar to conquer the east,the destruction of Crassus made that militarily obvious;the legion was a formation that still could be dominant in Europe,but in the vast expances of the East the missile cavalries were predominant and they would be for the next 1500 years,until the advent of gunpowder and the cannon

Crassus was not a skilled military commander and in fact should not have been him to lead the legions against the Parthians, but Pompey (only that the latter, newly married with Caesar's young daughter did not want to leave his wife and opted to exchange provinces with Crassus: Spain, which allowed him to remain in Rome, to Pompey and Syria and the campaign against the Parthians for Crassus).

And Marc Antony lost his campaign against the Parthians, not because the enemy was better but because the campaign began later (most likely wait for the men that Octavian had promised but never sent), and because he was betrayed by his allies (which made ​​him lose men, baggage train, supplies, all siege weapons, money). The plan (which must be the one designed by Caesar), under normal circumstances, most likely would work, and secured the victory to the Romans since the Parthians were not unbeatable.
 
this is not necessarily true IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Cilician_Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Gindarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amanus_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#War_against_Parthia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ctesiphon_%28198%29

More often than not, it was the Romans that beat the Parthians and sacked their capital repeatedly. All the Parthians achieved was either dominance over Armenia or the repulsing of Roman invasions.

Actually Magnum,the first three are on special terrain(passes and mountains) and Trajan's army was different to that of Ceasar since it contain as much as 30% of mobile units,well trained to face light cavalry of bowmen whereas Ceasar would have to create and train cavalry capable of manoevre on vast expances of land;training would not be enough,these units would also need climatisation and experience;Ceasar did not have time for all that since he was quite old for his time.
In fact the Romans only had defeats during the Sassanids and the only man who faced victorioulsy both the impact cavalries(barbaric/European) or the missile cavalries(Persians) was Julian the Great who defeated the barbaric cavalries in the first battle of Adrianople(357BC),but that was the last victory of the legions....
 
Last edited:
Crassus was not a skilled military commander and in fact should not have been him to lead the legions against the Parthians, but Pompey (only that the latter, newly married with Caesar's young daughter did not want to leave his wife and opted to exchange provinces with Crassus: Spain, which allowed him to remain in Rome, to Pompey and Syria and the campaign against the Parthians for Crassus).

And Marc Antony lost his campaign against the Parthians, not because the enemy was better but because the campaign began later (most likely wait for the men that Octavian had promised but never sent), and because he was betrayed by his allies (which made ​​him lose men, baggage train, supplies, all siege weapons, money). The plan (which must be the one designed by Caesar), under normal circumstances, most likely would work, and secured the victory to the Romans since the Parthians were not unbeatable.

Isabela,as the military history taught us even the best commander of legions had no answer to cavalry that charged with sychronisation and discipline,shot its arrows and left,only to return and repeat the action until
the enemy could take no more.It is impossible to run after horses when you are a legionaire on foot.A good commander would probably understand that(Poplius Cornelius Scipio Africanus) and would take serious measures to face the problem and keep on the defensive until he was ready;The Romans could never claim Mesopotamia again after Trajan with any degree of continuity and the Palmyrian horse archers,allies of Rome, saved the Roman Eastafter catastrophic defeats(Vallens etc).The early Byzantines(Heracleios etc) had grasped the inportance of missile firing and created their catafract horse archers to combat the Persians;both empires wore each other out in endless wars to their detriment and great advantage of Arabs and Turks.
I apologise I had to sidetruck a bit,but I wanted you to understand that historically the time of the supremacy of the Roman legion was over in the East and remained good in Europe until the end of the third,start of the fourth century with the predominance of the barbarian impact cavalries.Please note the reforms of Diocletian and the disappearance of the formation 'legion' as we knew it.
 
Last edited:
Isabela,as the military history taught us even the best commander of legions had no answer to cavalry that charged with sychronisation and discipline,shot its arrows and left,only to return and repeat the action until
the enemy could take no more.It is impossible to run after horses when you are a legionaire on foot.

then I guess these things are ASB

The Parthians faced no opposition to their river crossing and proceeded to the town of Gindarus in Cyrrhestica, confident in their belief that their Roman foes were weak or cowardly, since they did not attempt to prevent the river crossing.
When the Parthians got to the town, which sat on a small hill, they encountered Roman legions confidently formed in battle order on the slopes. The Parthians rushed to attack - whether this order came from Pacorus or was a spontaneous charge is unknown. In any case, Ventidius ordered his troops, who had the advantage of high ground, to attack the horse-archers advancing up the slope. The horse-archers were forced into close-quartered combat against the legionaries and suffered heavily for it, for they were unsuited for such combat. The Parthian cavalry's will eventually broke and panic spread, many of the horse archers being driven down the slope were they crashed into their fellows in their desperation to escape. The horse-archers eventually fled or fell. Parthian heavy cavalry, which was stationed at the bottom of the hill, was enveloped and surrounded by the legionaries. Instead of immediately attacking with the legionaries, Ventidius made use of his slingers to rain down projectiles on the Parthian heavy cavalry, which included Pacorus himself. After the barrage was lifted the legionaries moved in and were quickly able to identify Pacorus because of his standard and expensive armour. Pacorus was eventually slain along with his bodyguards, and the remaining cavalry broke and attempted to flee from their entrapment, which not all managed to do. Overall the Roman army had achieved a complete victory.
On the day of battle Ventidius’s positioned his men on a hill in order to negate the Parthian strength in cavalry. Learning from General Saxa’s errors in regards to his cavalry in the previous year Ventidius decided not to waste them in a needless cavalry assault and instead keep his cavalry on the flanks of his infantry who were the ones who he planned to use to blunt the enemy attack. The Parthians had formed their cavalry in a loose formation outside their camp at the bottom of the hill with horse-archers at the front and cataphracts in the rear, confident in their chances of success against the Romans the Parthians failed to wait for Labienus’s infantry troops to mobilise with them and instead surged up the hill to engage in combat with their Roman foes. The Parthian horse-archers unleashed a volley of arrows at the Romans, who held their position and hid behind their shields. The Romans fought back by firing volleys of javelins at the Parthians, eventually Ventidius commanded his men into a close order formation and to charge down the hill towards their enemies with whom they collided. The Parthian horse-archers were lightly armoured and were not able to hold their own against the heavily armoured Roman legionnaires in close-quartered combat. Eventually due to the high losses panic set in and the Parthian forces began to flee the victorious Romans leaving Labienus to his fate
if you look at a map of the area, most of Iran is hilly or mountainous terrain, readily accessible via Armenia, just the route Caesar intended to take. After some time, he can also easily recruit cavalry from Media (from where most of the Seleucid cavalry had come from) or from the steppes to the north.
Granted, victory isn't assured, but then neither is defeat, especially given the feudal nature of parthian society
 
then I guess these things are ASB

if you look at a map of the area, most of Iran is hilly or mountainous terrain, readily accessible via Armenia, just the route Caesar intended to take. After some time, he can also easily recruit cavalry from Media (from where most of the Seleucid cavalry had come from) or from the steppes to the north.
Granted, victory isn't assured, but then neither is defeat, especially given the feudal nature of parthian society

Yes I know the map of the area and I have already answered the case of Venditius.It is not a very good example and if you look back at your quotations,there is something the Parthians did there that is completely insane: only an insane leader charges entrenched enemy and...uphill! horses don't charge uphill unless they have a death wish;and don't forget,if
Ceasar wanted to emulate Alexander he would have to come down from the
mountain terrain and high passes to level land and secure his communications all the way to the west and the sea,and there is a lot of dry land and desert there as well which would not have been conquered by Ceasar whose mission then would be to overcome some very great odds.
Mede cavalry,yes possibly;how reliable against their countrymen? you have to accept that the problems are quite serious.
 
Some thoughts.

1) There are very few circumstances in which horse archers can be forced into melee against their choice. They exist, but relying on them would be a bad idea.

2) In order to counter the Parthian gains, Mark Antony gave Publius Ventidius Bassus command of several legions. Ventidius learned from Crassus' errors and made sure that his forces had sufficient firepower in the form of archers and slingers, for heavy infantry by itself was vulnerable to the mobile Parthian horse-archers. He also recognised that flat ground favoured the Parthian cavalry, whereas hilly terrain would nullify this advantage.

Will Caesar have sufficient archers and slingers? He can't rely on fighting on the defense and making them come at him, which is a problem when fighting a more mobile army.

3) Median cavalry being recruited sounds easier said than done - although if Caesar can manage it, I think they'd be loyal enough. Steppe cavalry might work, if Caesar can contact the steppe groups.
 
3) Median cavalry being recruited sounds easier said than done - although if Caesar can manage it, I think they'd be loyal enough. Steppe cavalry might work, if Caesar can contact the steppe groups.

If Caesar plays his diplomatic cards right, it shouldn't be that hard, given that Marc Anthony of all people managed it, only to screw the whole thing up later..
in 35 BC Artavasdes I (King of Media) offered Antony an alliance against Parthia, and Antony gladly accepted.[5] To deepen this friendship Alexander Helios, the son of Antony and Cleopatra VII of Egypt, was betrothed to Artavasdes’ daughter Iotapa, although both were infants (34 BC).[6]
In 33 BC Antony met his coalition partner on the river Araxes; they agreed that Antony should support Artavasdes I against Parthia and that the Median king should help Antony against Octavian. They interchanged parts of their troops. The domain of Artavasdes I was enlarged with parts of Armenia
...
With the help of the Roman reinforcements Artavasdes I was initially able to repulse the Parthian attack. But before the Battle of Actium Antony called back his Roman troops without sending back the Median reinforcements. This time Phraates IV defeated Artavasdes who was captured in 30 BC.[7]
 
If Caesar plays his diplomatic cards right, it shouldn't be that hard, given that Marc Anthony of all people managed it, only to screw the whole thing up later..

True, although Mark Anthony screwing it up might leave a sour legacy.

Worth a shot though.
 
Top