WI: Caesar Proclaims Himself King?

I doubt Caesar would want to have much to do with Caesarion. Caesarion was a liability more than anything-if Caesar tried to legitimize him in any way, the Roman aristocracy would jump on it like nobody's business to paint Caesar as un-Roman and trying to make himself a king-after all, Caesarion is the son of a foreign queen. Besides, Caesar had already shown by the time of his death (by nature of his will) that he was grooming Octavian to be his long term heir.
 
I rather agree with you on Caesarion.

As far as Octvius was concerned, I would be much more cautious. Octavian's propaganda aimed at proving that he was the predestined leader of the roman empire. So he erased or distorted anything showing that he was one of the temporaire heirs Caesar considered.

The most serious prof that Octavian must not be overestimated before Caesar's murder is that the young man did not know he had been adopted by testament.

Caesar in fact had successive potentiel heirs : Pompey from 59 to 48, and Octavian from late 45 or early 44 on.

Who was Caesar's heir between 48 and 45 after Caesar denounced his will in favour of Pompey (one always replace a will he denounced by another) ?
Very probably his cousin Sextus Julius Caesar (the grandson of Caesar's uncle who was consul in 91), until he was murderer in Syria in 46.
Then and only then did Caesar consider having Octavian as his new heir.

But that was rather probably with the hope of having a son of his own blood. Of course preferably from his legal wife Calpurnia, who was in her early thirties.
 
I rather agree with you on Caesarion.

As far as Octvius was concerned, I would be much more cautious. Octavian's propaganda aimed at proving that he was the predestined leader of the roman empire. So he erased or distorted anything showing that he was one of the temporaire heirs Caesar considered.

The most serious prof that Octavian must not be overestimated before Caesar's murder is that the young man did not know he had been adopted by testament.

Caesar in fact had successive potentiel heirs : Pompey from 59 to 48, and Octavian from late 45 or early 44 on.

Who was Caesar's heir between 48 and 45 after Caesar denounced his will in favour of Pompey (one always replace a will he denounced by another) ?
Very probably his cousin Sextus Julius Caesar (the grandson of Caesar's uncle who was consul in 91), until he was murderer in Syria in 46.
Then and only then did Caesar consider having Octavian as his new heir.

But that was rather probably with the hope of having a son of his own blood. Of course preferably from his legal wife Calpurnia, who was in her early thirties.

What prevented them from having a child together?
 
The most serious prof that Octavian must not be overestimated before Caesar's murder is that the young man did not know he had been adopted by testament.

Caesar may have kept the will secret partly so that he doesn't seem to be like a king anointing an heir (in OTL, after a near death from illness, Octavian/Augustus quickly reassured the Senate by revealing his will did not name any heirs, as proof he was not acting like a king. At that time, many suspected Augustus would name his nephew as heir).

More likely, also to not endanger young Octavian and create trouble with others like Decimus Brutus and Mark Antony, who would not happy had they known the will would have made Octavius as heir.

I do agree with the rest of your points though, later Augustan propaganda made the whole thing seem like destiny, when in truth there were multiple times Octavian and his allies could have screwed up (I always imagine a POD where Sextus Pompey won instead of Agrippa, thus bringing about the downfall of Octavian).

Don't forget the other heir named in the will, another grand nephew of Caesar's or something, Quintus Paedius who was already a proconsul and had a triumph by the time of Caesar's death. Caesar could have chosen him for posthumous adaptation allowing him to take the name 'Caesar' instead of Octavian. OTL he did become consul alongside Octavian, the main heir.

Of course preferably from his legal wife Calpurnia, who was in her early thirties.

Anyone ever done a POD of this, Julius Caesar having a legitimate Roman son instead of Caesarion? It'd be an interesting scenario, would his opponents be even more worried of his kingly ambitions or consider it a good thing that he has a Roman heir instead of a son from that Greek-Egyptian queen? What would happen to Octavian in this scenario, just another member of the Julian clan (and Agrippa just another minor eques)?
 
A side note on Sextus Pompey: At one point, Octavian was almost killed by Pompey in one of his failed naval/land assaults on Sicily, but Pompey was unaware he was there so relented on pursuit (or something like that).


Otherwise, I agree with Wanderer.
 
Caesar may have kept the will secret partly so that he doesn't seem to be like a king anointing an heir (in OTL, after a near death from illness, Octavian/Augustus quickly reassured the Senate by revealing his will did not name any heirs, as proof he was not acting like a king. At that time, many suspected Augustus would name his nephew as heir).

More likely, also to not endanger young Octavian and create trouble with others like Decimus Brutus and Mark Antony, who would not happy had they known the will would have made Octavius as heir.

I do agree with the rest of your points though, later Augustan propaganda made the whole thing seem like destiny, when in truth there were multiple times Octavian and his allies could have screwed up (I always imagine a POD where Sextus Pompey won instead of Agrippa, thus bringing about the downfall of Octavian).

Don't forget the other heir named in the will, another grand nephew of Caesar's or something, Quintus Paedius who was already a proconsul and had a triumph by the time of Caesar's death. Caesar could have chosen him for posthumous adaptation allowing him to take the name 'Caesar' instead of Octavian. OTL he did become consul alongside Octavian, the main heir.



Anyone ever done a POD of this, Julius Caesar having a legitimate Roman son instead of Caesarion? It'd be an interesting scenario, would his opponents be even more worried of his kingly ambitions or consider it a good thing that he has a Roman heir instead of a son from that Greek-Egyptian queen? What would happen to Octavian in this scenario, just another member of the Julian clan (and Agrippa just another minor eques)?

I rather disagree on your hypothesis that Caesar kept the adoption secret from Octavian in order to protect the young man. They could have shared the secret together, which they did not. In fact, having a teenager of a child ad heir was a good protection for the heir because nobody feared a too young heir.

And most of all, the will, like any will, was only about private business. There was nothing political in Caesar's will.

We should consider that Caesar was in fact more republican than Octavian.

Like any sonless noble, Caesar wanted someone to perpetuate his glorious name. Like any leading no le, Caesar wanted to give a must to his son's career (whoever he adopted) and expected his lieutenants to help his son when he, Caesar, would be dead.

But nobody expected what Octavian did when only 19-22 years old. He shocked and stunned everybody. This was his masterwork : to rebuild a political powerbase at the expense of Caesar's natural political heirs (Anthony and Lepidus), to finally eliminate his senior rivals, and to build a solid monarchie regime.

Nobody could imagine this. Not even Caesar. Not even Octavian himself who had an incredible amount of luck.

For the rest, it would indeed be very interesting having Caesar have a legal son from one of his successive wives.

Which one ?

From Cornelia, a son would have been born no later than 69 : at least six years older than Octavian. He could have fought in the gallic war and the civil war.

Let's forget Pompeia : à son from her would be the same age ad Octavian.

From Calpurnia the son would have been born no soigner than 58 : at least 5 years younger than Octavian. This would change many things because Octavian would never win the adoption jackpot and especially, Caesar's heir would be a child dir more years, being a you in the habds of Anthony and Lepidus.
 
Last edited:
In some ways I agree with your points Matteo. It could be that the posthumous adoption was just Caesar passing on his name to an heir, nothing more. Though I have read somewhere it's not the usual way of adopting a legal heir. Why posthumously, when most heirs are mostly adopted while alive, if indeed as you say it was as simple as a Roman aristocrat wanting a 'legal son' to carry his name. Hence me thinking it was something to do with Octavian's safety (and Caesar's too, I mention the example of Augustus having to deny an heir in his will after recovering from illness). Still, you could be correct too, in that Caesar just considered it a family matter and soemthing he wanted to pass to Octavian in case of anything, after all he was on the way to another campaign in Parthia.

However, Caesar as "more republican than Octavian"....well he certainly didn't show it in the run up to his assasination. He styled himself in the garbs of ancient kings, failed to show proper respect to the Senate and at least one source (Cicero if I recall) suggested that the whole thing with the crown and Mark Antony was planned to gauge how much the crowd would ahve supported him being king (as it was, not much support!).

Octavian, even after becoming Augustus, showed much more respect for traditions of teh republic, especially the Senate. As you said, not even Octavin imagined he would become "emperor", likely at the beginning what Octavian did was simply to insist on what he thought was legally his, the name of Caesar and recognition as legal heir of Julius Caesar. It just so happens that demanding those rights led him down the path where he had to put down enemies one by one, including those who would consider themselves equally Caesar's heirs politically/militarily.

As for the son, I think the more interesting one would be for Calpurnia to conceive after Caesar returns from Gaul/crossed the Rubicon, and the son is born while Caesar was fighting Pompey etc. I don't think it'd butterfly away Caesarion, Caesar could still enjoy Cleo as mistress methinks. But after that, he wouldn't have the posthumous adoption of Octavius, no? Similarly, his focus on Rome now is celebrating that he has a son, a ROMAN son! No one would giver a damn anymore about his son with Cleopatra, people would just nudge and wink and make jokes, but that's about it, no?

So...would he still want to go to Parthia, just like OTL if he wasn't killed? Would the conspiracy still happen, "king Caesar" now has an heir after all. Caesar may still support Octavius' career, just like he did for many of his relatives (I think Mark Antony is like a distant cousin of Caesar's right?), might even help him reach all the way to consulship. If Caesar still died with his son as infant, would Calpurnia remarry? And with who, and could that person be an important "kingmaker" among the Romans, heh heh.

BTW, would the son also be named Gaius Julius Caesar, or is there some other possible first name (Lucius? Quintus? Marcus?).
 
In some ways I agree with your points Matteo. It could be that the posthumous adoption was just Caesar passing on his name to an heir, nothing more. Though I have read somewhere it's not the usual way of adopting a legal heir. Why posthumously, when most heirs are mostly adopted while alive, if indeed as you say it was as simple as a Roman aristocrat wanting a 'legal son' to carry his name. Hence me thinking it was something to do with Octavian's safety (and Caesar's too, I mention the example of Augustus having to deny an heir in his will after recovering from illness). Still, you could be correct too, in that Caesar just considered it a family matter and soemthing he wanted to pass to Octavian in case of anything, after all he was on the way to another campaign in Parthia.

However, Caesar as "more republican than Octavian"....well he certainly didn't show it in the run up to his assasination. He styled himself in the garbs of ancient kings, failed to show proper respect to the Senate and at least one source (Cicero if I recall) suggested that the whole thing with the crown and Mark Antony was planned to gauge how much the crowd would ahve supported him being king (as it was, not much support!).

Octavian, even after becoming Augustus, showed much more respect for traditions of teh republic, especially the Senate. As you said, not even Octavin imagined he would become "emperor", likely at the beginning what Octavian did was simply to insist on what he thought was legally his, the name of Caesar and recognition as legal heir of Julius Caesar. It just so happens that demanding those rights led him down the path where he had to put down enemies one by one, including those who would consider themselves equally Caesar's heirs politically/militarily.

As for the son, I think the more interesting one would be for Calpurnia to conceive after Caesar returns from Gaul/crossed the Rubicon, and the son is born while Caesar was fighting Pompey etc. I don't think it'd butterfly away Caesarion, Caesar could still enjoy Cleo as mistress methinks. But after that, he wouldn't have the posthumous adoption of Octavius, no? Similarly, his focus on Rome now is celebrating that he has a son, a ROMAN son! No one would giver a damn anymore about his son with Cleopatra, people would just nudge and wink and make jokes, but that's about it, no?

So...would he still want to go to Parthia, just like OTL if he wasn't killed? Would the conspiracy still happen, "king Caesar" now has an heir after all. Caesar may still support Octavius' career, just like he did for many of his relatives (I think Mark Antony is like a distant cousin of Caesar's right?), might even help him reach all the way to consulship. If Caesar still died with his son as infant, would Calpurnia remarry? And with who, and could that person be an important "kingmaker" among the Romans, heh heh.

BTW, would the son also be named Gaius Julius Caesar, or is there some other possible first name (Lucius? Quintus? Marcus?).

About posthumous adoption, this is precisely what I am stressing : It was very unusual although not unprecedented.

Posthumous adoption could only mean 2 things :
- either ex-post reparation of an accident. That's what Servilia engineered for her son Brutus when her only brother, the last of the patriclan Servilii (the Servilii Caepiones) died childless. She organized the adoption of her own son Brutus (plebeian by his father) by her dead brother. Brutus' legal name became Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus.
- or keeping one aristocrat's options still open and enabling him to change his will by keeping it secret.

Since Caesar dictated his will before his death, my theory is that Caesar acted as he did because he wanted to keep his options free if ever he had a son by his wife or if ever Something wrong happened with Octavian.
 
As an aside, we've found coins from the Dominate period with inscribed with "Republic" on them.

Of course, the Republic never dies, even when the carcass has been thoroughly eaten. I'm assuming those coins come from the early dominate, maybe late crisis.
 

elkarlo

Banned
According to this source, Caesar did indeed have ambitions to be crowned king. He apparently forged a prophecy saying Rome could only conquer Parthia if it was led by a king. Caesar was about to start a war with Parthia. It's pretty obvious what he was getting at.

He was right too. Well with a Byzantine emperor that is
 
Top