WI: Caesar dies in Gaul, how long does the Republic last?

The Undead Martyr

Exactly what it says on the tin. By Caesars time the Republic was rotting from wothin, nonetheless Caesar's coup and victory in the civil war was a fairly exceptional process which might well not be replicated. More significant IMHO is a (longer) independent Gaul (and possibly Egypt, although given Roman interest in the east and the natural lure of Oriental wealth for ambitious Pompey types I think it would be subjugated sooner or later), as well as eliminating Roman influence in northern France/preserving the pre-Roman Celtic culture.

Moreover there is also the question of what happens to Christianity if the Roman conquest of Palestine is delayed and/or averted.
 

star lord 7

Right off the top of my head, I'd say that Pompey could conceivably take Caesar's place as Dictator for Life, but I'm not sure if that would be able to spin off into an empire in the manner of Augustus.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
With Crassus dead as well, it's pretty clear that Pompey comes out the winner here.

Suggested PoD -- Mark Antony kills Clodius, meaning he doesn't join Caesar in Gaul, butterflying into a Roman less at Alesia. In addition to setting up the OP, it gives Pomoey an extra leg up by allowing one of his partners, Milo, to help him longer.
 

The Undead Martyr

In the long term, let's assume this means Roman Gaul is limited to Southern Aquitaine and Provence (i.e. Gothia) and that Gaul eventually unifies and stays in the Germanic/Celtic orbit, annexing the left bank of the Rhine and maybe more (to the Weser? The Elbe? The Oder if they get a Charlemagne type figure?). Meanwhile Pompey manages to conquer Egypt and the Orient (no reason to think he wouldn't end up in bed- literally and metaphorically- with Cleopatra and try for Egypt just as Caesar did). Rome itself shifts eastward earlier- Spain, Italy, and the Eastern empire (plus occasionally Gothia/Provence whenever Rome is strong and whoever controls Gaul is weak) are fairly defensible borders, especially if they can keep the Danube valley, and centered around the strong interior lines of the Mediterranean. Could we see the capital moved to Greece, either Constantinople or, say, Athens or the like, or perhaps even to Egypt, Sicily, or Carthage or the like?
 
Alcsentre Calanice

Alcsentre Calanice

In the 50s the reform of the Roman Republic was well underway. Pompey was the era's strongman, but he wasn't a very skilled politician (in contrast to his military genius) - very much to the contrary, Pompey enacted some laws that tried to solve the republic's most urgent problems.

Besides attending to these matters Pompey revived the law about elections that commanded those who seek an office to present themselves without fail before the assembly, so that no one who was absent might be chosen; this law had somehow fallen into disuse. He also confirmed the decree, passed a short time previously, that those who had held office in the city should not be assigned to command abroad until five years had passed. 2 And yet, after proposing these measures at this time, he was not ashamed a little later to take Spain himself for five years more and to grant to Caesar, whose friends were in a terrible state of indignation, the right to canvass for the consulship even in his absence, as had been decreed. 3 For he had amended the law to read that only those should be permitted to do it who were granted the privilege by name and without disguise; but this was no different from its not having been prohibited at all, for men who had any influence were certainly going to manage to get the right voted to them. Such were the political acts of Pompey.

Scipio, without enacting any new laws, abolished the laws emanating from Clodius with regard to the censors. It looked as though he had done this out of favour to them, since he had restored to them the authority which they formerly had; but it turned out to be the opposite. 2 For in view of the fact that there were many unworthy men both in the equestrian and in the senatorial orders, so long as it had not been permitted them to expel any one who had been either accused or convicted, no fault was found with them on account of those whose names were not expunged. 3 But when they got back their old power and were allowed to do this on their own authority after examining into the life of each man, they had not the hardihood to come to an open break with many, nor had they, on the other hand, any desire to incur censure for failing to expel men who were unfit to retain their rank, and for this reason no sensible person had any desire for the office any longer.

Was this enough to save the republic? Certainly not. But alongside Pompey (and against him) Cato and Cicero had their own plans to reform the repulic and if Caesar dies in Gaul, the Roman Republic might gain a decade to overcome its crisis through more advanced reforms.
 
Alcsentre Calanice

Alcsentre Calanice

Oh, and before somebody brings up the usual subject: Gaul will become Roman.

Gaul was an urbanized, rich area and thus a valuable conquest both for the Roman Republic and any ambitious Roman general. In constrast to Germania, it isn't completly covered by marshes and forests and thus much easier to conquer. The Gaulish noblemen already lived under Greco-Roman influence and some of them were already almost romanized. Furthermore, Gaul wasn't united and the Romans had many allies among the Gaulish tribes - and a disunited Gaul is easy to conquer for the Romans who defeated more centralized empires in the past.
What could happen though is that Gaul isn't conquered in one war like IOTL, but that certain tribes evolve into client kingdoms and are slowly annexed by the Romans, just like the kingdoms of Asia Minor or Noricum if you want a Celtic examle.
 
Alcsentre Calanice

Alcsentre Calanice

Now concerning the orient: The always unstable Ptolemaic kingdom will fall at some point. Not necessarily as soon as OTL, but sooner or later, it will be annexed by the Roman Empire. The Romans had strong economic interests in the region (especially Rome's grain supply and the trade with India). The Romans need a reliable government which prevents disorder in the region (which Cleopatra was) and which has no ambitions of playing an independent political role (which Cleopatra wasn't). Also, Rome needs to control the Orient to protect its new province Syria and to check the Parthians, who were trying to gain an access to the Mediterranean.

The Undead Martyr said:
Moreover there is also the question of what happens to Christianity if the Roman conquest of Palestine is delayed and/or averted.
Click to expand...

Sects come and go in the orient, maybe something like Christianity appears ITTL too, maybe not. It depends on what you regards as the socio-economic factors leading to the spread of Christianity, and if these factors are still present ITTL.
 

samcster94

Banned
The Temple stuff and expulsion stuff, of an analog of it, is still quite likely. An Alt-Christianity is possible, but does not change that much.
G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
Now concerning the orient: The always unstable Ptolemaic kingdom will fall at some point. Not necessarily as soon as OTL, but sooner or later, it will be annexed by the Roman Empire. The Romans had strong economic interests in the region (especially Rome's grain supply and the trade with India). The Romans need a reliable government which prevents disorder in the region (which Cleopatra was) and which has no ambitions of playing an independent political role (which Cleopatra wasn't). Also, Rome needs to control the Orient to protect its new province Syria and to check the Parthians, who were trying to gain an access to the Mediterranean.



Sects come and go in the orient, maybe something like Christianity appears ITTL too, maybe not. It depends on what you regards as the socio-economic factors leading to the spread of Christianity, and if these factors are still present ITTL.
Click to expand...
 

calvin1417

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
In the 50s the reform of the Roman Republic was well underway. Pompey was the era's strongman, but he wasn't a very skilled politician (in contrast to his military genius) - very much to the contrary, Pompey enacted some laws that tried to solve the republic's most urgent problems.

Besides attending to these matters Pompey revived the law about elections that commanded those who seek an office to present themselves without fail before the assembly, so that no one who was absent might be chosen; this law had somehow fallen into disuse. He also confirmed the decree, passed a short time previously, that those who had held office in the city should not be assigned to command abroad until five years had passed. 2 And yet, after proposing these measures at this time, he was not ashamed a little later to take Spain himself for five years more and to grant to Caesar, whose friends were in a terrible state of indignation, the right to canvass for the consulship even in his absence, as had been decreed. 3 For he had amended the law to read that only those should be permitted to do it who were granted the privilege by name and without disguise; but this was no different from its not having been prohibited at all, for men who had any influence were certainly going to manage to get the right voted to them. Such were the political acts of Pompey.

Scipio, without enacting any new laws, abolished the laws emanating from Clodius with regard to the censors. It looked as though he had done this out of favour to them, since he had restored to them the authority which they formerly had; but it turned out to be the opposite. 2 For in view of the fact that there were many unworthy men both in the equestrian and in the senatorial orders, so long as it had not been permitted them to expel any one who had been either accused or convicted, no fault was found with them on account of those whose names were not expunged. 3 But when they got back their old power and were allowed to do this on their own authority after examining into the life of each man, they had not the hardihood to come to an open break with many, nor had they, on the other hand, any desire to incur censure for failing to expel men who were unfit to retain their rank, and for this reason no sensible person had any desire for the office any longer.

Was this enough to save the republic? Certainly not. But alongside Pompey (and against him) Cato and Cicero had their own plans to reform the repulic and if Caesar dies in Gaul, the Roman Republic might gain a decade to overcome its crisis through more advanced reforms.
Click to expand...
Hm interesting
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
Now concerning the orient: The always unstable Ptolemaic kingdom will fall at some point. Not necessarily as soon as OTL, but sooner or later, it will be annexed by the Roman Empire. The Romans had strong economic interests in the region (especially Rome's grain supply and the trade with India). The Romans need a reliable government which prevents disorder in the region (which Cleopatra was) and which has no ambitions of playing an independent political role (which Cleopatra wasn't). Also, Rome needs to control the Orient to protect its new province Syria and to check the Parthians, who were trying to gain an access to the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on everything else, but this is where I disagree. First, without Caesar, Cleopatra's days are numbered. Her survival was due to the insanely convenient timing of Caesar's arrival and then by Ptolemy XIV completely botching the political situation and alienating Caesar. Without him, she's not going to survive.

Now, with regards to Egypt proper, Republican Rome will not annex Egypt. Even Augustus likely would have preferred maintaining a client kingdom there, if he didn't desperately need Egyptian gold and had a lack of suitable candidates for the throne lying around. The reason for this is annexing Egypt will give whoever pulls it off enormous prestige, power, wealth, and clientele, and nobody in Rome was willing to acquiesce to any of their rivals getting the credit for that. Just see how badly Aulus Gabinius's attempt to merely restore the throne to Ptolemy Auletes backfired politically as an example. Besides that, governing Egypt was another very real concern-neither the Greek or Egyptian population would prove very conducive to direct Roman rule, and a war in Egypt could get nasty fast. Even without that, any one man left to govern Egypt would be given enormous power, again, not something that the Republic wants.

There really isn't any incentive to annex Egypt, and there's plenty of reason not to do so.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
No, Diocletian abolished its special treatment and made it a normal province.
Click to expand...
By imperial period, I meant from Augustus on. Obviously things were different by the end of the third century. There's not much reason for Rome to end Egypt's independence, and any reason they do have will be outweighed by all the political reasons to not annex them. The Romans preferred client rulers anyway, and only took on direct annexation in very specific circumstances, at least until Claudius started overhauling Roman administration.
 

calvin1417

SlyDessertFox said:
I agree with you on everything else, but this is where I disagree. First, without Caesar, Cleopatra's days are numbered. Her survival was due to the insanely convenient timing of Caesar's arrival and then by Ptolemy XIV completely botching the political situation and alienating Caesar. Without him, she's not going to survive.

Now, with regards to Egypt proper, Republican Rome will not annex Egypt. Even Augustus likely would have preferred maintaining a client kingdom there, if he didn't desperately need Egyptian gold and had a lack of suitable candidates for the throne lying around. The reason for this is annexing Egypt will give whoever pulls it off enormous prestige, power, wealth, and clientele, and nobody in Rome was willing to acquiesce to any of their rivals getting the credit for that. Just see how badly Aulus Gabinius's attempt to merely restore the throne to Ptolemy Auletes backfired politically as an example. Besides that, governing Egypt was another very real concern-neither the Greek or Egyptian population would prove very conducive to direct Roman rule, and a war in Egypt could get nasty fast. Even without that, any one man left to govern Egypt would be given enormous power, again, not something that the Republic wants.

There really isn't any incentive to annex Egypt, and there's plenty of reason not to do so.
Click to expand...
Who's to say that Rome doesn't end up with an absolute ruler later then otl who ends up annexing Egypt?
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

The Undead Martyr said:
Republican Rome is if anything even more likely to conquer Egypt due to all the ambitious ariatocrats and senators wanting prestige and glory.
Click to expand...
See my argument above for why this is exactly why Rome would not conquer Egypt during the Republic. If you don't want to just take my word for it though, I will always point to the Aulus Gabinius affair, where he and Pompey got massive political blowback, to the point where Gabinius was even prosecuted, for merely leading an army to restore Ptolemy Auletes to the throne, so worried were the Romans about the prestige that any one person might accumulate from intervention in Egypt.
 
Raunchel

Raunchel

Banned
The conquest of Egypt is almost inevitable. Aulus Gabinius led to trouble, yes, but Egypt was constantly weakening, and being drawn deeper and deeper into the Roman orbit. The prestige and wealth that a conquest offered was enormous. All it takes is a good excuse, and someone with enough (or perhaps, not very much) in the way of prestige to be given the opportunity. After all, Caesar also managed to illegally conquer most of Gaul. It mostly takes an Egyptian king being stupid enough to offer the right kind of opportunity to an ambitious (and connected) governor. After the fact, this will probably lead to another civil war, but that's almost inevitable in the Roman system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top