Deleted member 93645
If Caesar invaded Parthia, how successful would he be? Could he conquer the entire region? How would this affect the future Roman Empire?
What if Julius Caesar was not assassinated and invaded Parthia?
I strongly doubt a war with Parthia would have ended with a Roman conquest of the whole region. Parthia was not Gaul. It's hard to say what would have happened, but Antony's war with Parthia didn't go well in OTL.
This would have been extremely risky, but then again this is Caesar we're talking about. It could have been his crowning achievement or a huge blunder weighing down his legacy.
Also it's worth mentioning that Caesar surviving may have butterflied the form, but not the essence, of the empire.
This would have been extremely risky, but then again this is Caesar we're talking about. It could have been his crowning achievement or a huge blunder weighing down his legacy.
Also it's worth mentioning that Caesar surviving may have butterflied the form, but not the essence, of the empire.
He was planning a campaign in Dacia before Parthia. Considering this is Caesar, and he now has the undivided resources and manpower of the Roman world behind him unlike his earlier campaigns, and considering he can learn from the mistakes of Crassus, Im betting he would have achieved victory in both campaigns. He was 56 and in good health, and frankly he faced far worst odds before and still won. Of course, we can argue about what "victory" looks like, especially in Parthia.
If there was anything that game taught me, is that winning any land battle is easy, but naval one is guaranteed defeat.
So, since Parthia is not an island, it should be easy to conquer it.
Faeelin
Banned
I'm not so sure. Severus and Trajan were able to beat the Parthians. Is there a reason we think Caesar is a lower caliber leader?
Personally I don't think Caesar would be defeated,but I don't think it's appropriate to say that Caesar will definitely win since Severus and Trajan were able to do so.By all means,the Parthia the two beat would be very different to the one Caesar's facing.For one they have a totally different king to begin with and different commanders.
Well, the commander that beat Crassus, Surena, was soon after executed by King Orodes II, who feared such a successful military leader might prove a threat. So at least different leaders on the Parthian side.
Mark Antony OTL lost mostly for a series of circustances who will not trouble Caesar (and who are almost all likely fault of Octavian who was already working to destroy Antony).
Mark Antony started his Parthian campaign too late (because he was waiting for reinforcements from Rome, a couple of legions who Octavian must send to him under their treaty and never sent) and the subsequent mistakes were mostly caused by this late start: first for going quicker Antony was forced to divide his army and left the baggage train (with all the siege engines) behind and under the command of the apparently trusted king of Armenia so Antony was both unable to effectually lay siege to some cities on his road and was betrayed by the King of Armenia (who was in conctat with the Parthians for sure and likely also with Octavian).
If you consider who Caesar will not have this kind of trouble to undermine his campaign is not unlikely he can win against Parthians at least how needed for persuade them to make a peace treaty with Rome, stay away from the roman borders and give back the Eagles lost by Crassus and pass some strips of land (and sonme border kingdoms) under roman control
Octavian would have been traveling with his great-uncle on the Parthian campaign, so if Caesar loses and is killed, it's likely young Octavian meets a premature end as well. Meanwhile, Marc Antony would be left in charge of Rome... which can't end well.
Yeah this. Antony was basically carrying out Caesar's strategy, which by itself was actually a very good one, since he won't be running into the same trouble Antony had. It's also likely Caesar can get Artavasdes of Media-Atropatene to join his side, which opens up a clear path into Mesoptamia from the north. Parthia should fold quickly (not conquest, but you get the idea). Best case scenario for Caesar I can think of is he sets up a client kingdom (or direct control, but probably not likely) in southern mesoptamia and maybe takes direct control of Assyria and that area which Rome would come to control directly later IOTL anyway.
As for Dacia, Burebista would not be assassinated since Caesar will still be a threat (he was likely killed because there was little threat for invasion after Caesar's assassination). He'll be a very formidable foe, recall Dacia caused considerable problems for Domitian and even Trajan. I'm not sure if Caesar had absolute conquest on mind, or just shattering Burebista's power. If the latter, that would make for a potentially quick campaign, but if the former, that's going to be a drawn out quagmire possibly.
It probably could end well, after Caesar's assassination Antony worked towards reconciliation with his assassins, at least initially. Though, was Caesar actually planning on leaving him behind again? The last time Caesar left Antony to manage Italy, he fucked it up.
Actually, there's a good argument that he was not actually executed, and was still active in the fight against Antony later. There is another commander that shows up then, Monaesus, who seems to be the same person. Though apparently he appeared to be playing both sides-he kept a channel open with Antony IIRC. So there's a chance if things go south for the Parthians, he could defect. Perhaps this could be the client king Caesar sets up in Babylonia.
Last edited:
Crassus was too old and he was better in making money than waging a war.
Antony was a good politician and an excellent second-in-command but proved to be a bad general.
Caesar was a genius as a general. And he already knew the advantages of the Parthian military ways.
So, I think he will defeat the Parthian armies using his Germanic/Celtic/other cavalry and lots and lots of missile troops.
I guess he would include Mesopotamia into the Roman Empire, direct rule I mean.
The rest of the Parthian Empire will get properly looted and the set of client kingdoms will appear there.
Knowing Caesar's character he might repeat the Alexander the Great route, even crossing a river and going some miles into Central Asian Scythia.
But it would be more in style of Antiochus III the Great Eastern campaign - more about glory and influence, not about actual conquest.
I am not sure about Caesar's army visiting India though. It depends on the political situation there mostly. But remembering Caesar's crossing the Rhine and landing in Britain... well, that would be in his style - to strike terror into the neighbors' hearts, so to say.
I wondered that myself. This should be a cue to someone that we need a "Caesar invades Parthia" TL!
I am 100% sure that Caesar did not want to repeat Alexander's route and that he would not go to India.
Caesar had made public annoucements about the fact that his eastern campaign would last 3 years.
You can't take at face value caricatural gossip and caricature (although antic gossip and caricature) about Caesar wanting to go to India or Caesar wanting to be crowned king or Caesar wanting to be allowed personal polygamy in order to increase his probability of having a son.
The man had a very deep sense of reality and constraints. He was one of the greatest realists and calculators.
His eastern campaign goal was limited : rolling back the parthians who had attacked roman positions in Syria and maybe snatching Mesopotamia away from the Parthians and rolling them back to the Zagros Mountains like Trajan tried 160 years later.
Caesar is a competent leader with a strong army. He would most probably march to Ctesiphon, defeat the usual 60.000 men army the parthians can field, plunder the treasury in Ctesiphon if lucky, and call it a day. He can't risk to be absent from Rome for too long.
If he has more time, he would perhaps try to implement a bunch of client kings in Mesopotamia and the surrounding countries like Armenia, Media, Susiana and eventually Persis and Parthia. But therefore more campaigns are needed immediately afterwards. Perhaps his legates could do that. However, it is fully unclear, how such a balkanisation of the parthian empire could work longterm without strong and loyal leaders onsite.
And most importantly: none of the strong internal issues of the roman republic is solved with this conquest. Without that, the republic is still doomed to fall. Ceasar has to go back to Rome asap, with some very genious ideas.
PS: Perhaps Caesar crowns himself King of Kings of the new eastern empire. Just to reuse the usual governing structures in the East. He already talked about becoming King just outside of Italy.
India and even Bactria makes no sense at all for every roman leader with a brain. Caesar is no young dreamer like Alexander.
If he has more time, he would perhaps try to implement a bunch of client kings in Mesopotamia and the surrounding countries like Armenia, Media, Susiana and eventually Persis and Parthia. But therefore more campaigns are needed immediately afterwards. Perhaps his legates could do that. However, it is fully unclear, how such a balkanisation of the parthian empire could work longterm without strong and loyal leaders onsite.
And most importantly: none of the strong internal issues of the roman republic is solved with this conquest. Without that, the republic is still doomed to fall. Ceasar has to go back to Rome asap, with some very genious ideas.
PS: Perhaps Caesar crowns himself King of Kings of the new eastern empire. Just to reuse the usual governing structures in the East. He already talked about becoming King just outside of Italy.
India and even Bactria makes no sense at all for every roman leader with a brain. Caesar is no young dreamer like Alexander.
Last edited:
This is the point.
However, I would say that Caesar did not need some very genious idea to prevent the republic's fall.
Caesar's point of view had been for decades that "the republic is but a word without subtance or reality".
He already had his plan. He thought that a few quick and glorious military campaigns would heal wounds and that the part of the aristocracy that had opposed him would finally accept to join him in the empire's rule. And what is often ignored is that Caesar began to walk down the path that Augustus would devise. In his last months, he said that the senate should rather withdraw a part of the honors it had already given to him rather than add new ones. He took censorial powers without the title through cura morum.
That's basically what Augustus did 17 years later ... after he forced the aristocracy to bend down through civil war and mass proscriptions.
The difference is that the optimates were not ready yet to accept Caesar's rather mild popitical solution. They only resigned themselves to the unavoidable monarchical evolution of the roman republic when the yoke was imposed by a far more ruthless and ferocious political leader : Augustus was a second Sulla., without Sulla's will to restore the old nobility's oilgarchic domination.
Caesar's problem was not lacking genious ideas. It was lacking a magic wand to have his former political opponents (that had been the core of the optimate oligarchy since Sulla's restoration) adhere to his regime in order to reform the republic and its relations with the provinces (because the roman oligarchs had a tendancy to bleed the provinces to death) without mass proscriptions.
People thought that, because Caesar was murdered, he failed and did not know how to fix the republic's crisis. This is in fact countersense. Caesar's death was due to his neglegt of his security. Had he not dismissed his personal guard, he would not have been murdered, he would have founded the roman imperial regime and the optimates would have resigned to his rule.
Augustus chose Sulla's way because it gave more guarantee of quick success.
Hence the problem with Kings, this is why Caesar didn't want to purge the Roman Republic of all compitence to sure up his political position as Augustus did as it would destory the one thing that made Rome great, but of course Caesar also didn't want to give up power.
As for the OP, Caesar had a keen awareness of the limits of what he could logistically do. I see him most likely halving the Parthian Empire. Taking half of modern day Iraq and part of modern day Iran enough to make easily defendable borders for the Empire in the East.
Then I see him moving far further into Germany to make better defensable borders there.
I'm not sure of it's success based on Caesar's epilepsy (thought to be epilepsy of the temporal lobe) and the effect this might have on his soldiers' ability/willingness to follow him. At the time of his assassination Caesar's epilepsy was growing worse and he may well have already had a fit in public by this point according to either Plutarch or Appian (I can't remember which one of them said that Caesar had a fit while the Senate was deifying him). Bearing in mind that epilepsy was seen as a curse there is always the possibility of a fit in the middle of battle that could lead to a defeat or if it simply happened in public could lead to people questioning his ability to command.
I've always been a bit on the fence about whether he was neglecting security or whether he actually wanted the senators to assassinate him.
I've always been a bit on the fence about whether he was neglecting security or whether he actually wanted the senators to assassinate him.
There's actually been a recent study arguing that it was more likely a series a mini-strokes than epilepsy. Apparently, that diagnosis better fits the records we have of his illness. I have no idea if it's true, but it's been raised. Regardless, Caesar had already had fits of whatever his disease was during battle, and it didn't cost him victory then. According to Plutarch, Caesar was struck with one of his fits during the Battle of Thapsus and had to be carried off the field to safety. Doesn't seem to have cost him the battle or the confidence of his army. Although the potential for it to become an issue in a battle with the Parthians is certainly there.
Interesting thought