WI: Goals of an utterly triumphant Julius Caesar?

[Garetor]

So, it's well known that Julius Caesar died just before his planned invasion of Parthia. There's argument over just how ambitious this invasion was, such as whether he planned to conquer Parthia, Scythia, Dacia, and cap off with Germania before returning back to Rome, but let's assume that he just wants Parthia.

After surviving the assassination attempt, through whatever genius strategy and manipulation of local politics, Caesar manages to invade Parthia and conquer it within a few years. He leaves a collection of little client kings in place to keep it stable, then marches back home, laden with slaves and booty. He returns to stage the most magnificent triumph in Roman history, having assured his place as the greatest Roman to ever live.

What are his goals now? Would he make himself a king? A god? If he decides to continue on with Octavian as his successor, how does he elevate the lad against lieutenants like Antony and Lepidus?

He obviously wouldn't surrender power, given his criticism of Sulla, but I wonder if he would continue to integrate loyal subjects like noble Gauls into the senate, making it a more diverse body? What would be the purpose of the senate in this new autocratic Rome, without the careful balancing act Augustus needed to do?

As a side question, can anyone recommend good timelines along these lines? The only "Caesar lives and conquers" story like this I could find are the R.W. Peake novels, and I'm wary of committing to such a colossal series of books.

 

[Amateur]

During the period in question, Parthia ruled lands stretching from what is today the Iranian frontier with Pakistan to a fluctuating border with the Roman Republic. It is difficult to believe Julius Caesar would be able to conquer and hold such a vast territory so far from the Italian core of the Republic.

A more likely outcome would have been for Caesar's legions to establish client kingdoms in Armenia and northern Mesopotamia, leaving a resentful Parthian ruling class with resources and strategic depth sufficient to fight another day. Even a relatively quick campaign by Julius Caesar focused on the 'liberation' of the Armenian kingdom(s) would have taken years to plan, prepare for, and execute, and the great general would have been at least 57 years old at the start of the process.

For example, in response to Parthia's invasion of Roman Syria and the client kingdoms of Judea and Armenia in 40 BC, Marc Antony organized and led a successful counter SIX YEAR offensive that resulted in returning Syria, Judea, and Armenia to the Roman orbit. (Armenia returned to the Parthian orbit upon the death of Marc Antony.)

If Julius Caesar had led his legions against the Parthian Empire he may have been successful, but the results would have been temporary. He could have spent the balance of his life waging war in the East and never reached the Parthian home region (east and south of the Caspian Sea). Starting at age 57 and living on the march in army camps, he might have lived another 5 to 10 years, and Parthia was just too big, too advanced, and too far from the Roman ports needed to supply the legions for it to be conquered in such a short period of time.

 

[Garetor]

During the period in question, Parthia ruled lands stretching from what is today the Iranian frontier with Pakistan to a fluctuating border with the Roman Republic. It is difficult to believe Julius Caesar would be able to conquer and hold such a vast territory so far from the Italian core of the Republic.

A more likely outcome would have been for Caesar's legions to establish client kingdoms in Armenia and northern Mesopotamia, leaving a resentful Parthian ruling class with resources and strategic depth sufficient to fight another day. Even a relatively quick campaign by Julius Caesar focused on the 'liberation' of the Armenian kingdom(s) would have taken years to plan, prepare for, and execute, and the great general would have been at least 57 years old at the start of the process.

For example, in response to Parthia's invasion of Roman Syria and the client kingdoms of Judea and Armenia in 40 BC, Marc Antony organized and led a successful counter SIX YEAR offensive that resulted in returning Syria, Judea, and Armenia to the Roman orbit. (Armenia returned to the Parthian orbit upon the death of Marc Antony.)

If Julius Caesar had led his legions against the Parthian Empire he may have been successful, but the results would have been temporary. He could have spent the balance of his life waging war in the East and never reached the Parthian home region (east and south of the Caspian Sea). Starting at age 57 and living on the march in army camps, he might have lived another 5 to 10 years, and Parthia was just too big, too advanced, and too far from the Roman ports needed to supply the legions for it to be conquered in such a short period of time.

Fair enough. The point is less about whether or not he could conquer the Parthians forever and more what he would have done after returning home in triumph. Maybe it's just enough of a "conquest" that the Parthians, not wanting to fight the great general even in his twilight, cede border territory, a colossal payoff, and Crassus' legionary eagles. Given the reaction Augustus got just for getting the eagles back peacefully, I imagine that the eagles alone would be enough to get the kind of reaction I implied in my post.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

He's not going to be stupid enough to claim the TITLE king. I assume he'd what Octavian did and invest some other title with the power he wanted. Princeps, Dictator sempiternus, Pontifex....

Note that our modern word 'emperor' comes from 'imperator', which basically just means 'commander'.

It's not the original meaning of a word that's important, it the power you can invest in the word.

Heck, he could try 'Pater Romae/Romanorum' (father of Rome/the Romans).

Dux = leader could work. Dux SPQR for instance.

 

[Tempered Zen]

Well, he did have plans to make Octavian Master of The Horse in 43BC. Caesar was no idiot. He knew that the senators might try to take him away from power. He also passed a law that would allow him to appoint magistrates and consuls starting in the years 43 and 42 respectively. He would probably stop in Alexandria on the way East to get much needed help and reinforcements. Caesar probably has another child or two with Cleo while in Egypt. I could see Caesar conquering up to the Zagros and swaying the Parthian client kingdoms into Roman orbit. Caesar probably puts a friendly King on the throne of the now reduced Parthian state and marries off Parthian princesses to loyal client kings and vice versa. He probably appoints one of his lieutenants to govern over the East, much like Augustus did to Agrippa. If Caesar dies a natural death, Octavian probably comes into power. Cleopatra might take the opportunity to rally the East to the side of the son Caesarion, and take back some of the former Ptolemaic holdings, like the Levant and Cilicia. Whoever is in charge of the Roman East might have a big enough powerbase to challenge Octavian. The Senate will probably back a restoration of the Republic. In the end, a bigger civil war breaks out, and unless another Octavian like figure can assume control of the Republic, Rome probably collapses in on itself.

 

[Amateur]

The point is less about whether or not he could conquer the Parthians forever and more what he would have done after returning home in triumph

And my point is that it is unlikely Julius Caesar would have lived long enough to, starting at age 57, organize a campaign against Parthia, conquer and hold a significant swath of territory (most likely from the Syrian jump off point into Armenia), defeat the predictable counter offensive by the Parthian Emperor, return to Rome in triumph, and then do much else.

Successful campaigns (those resulting in added client kingdoms or provinces) against Parthia took time, on average about 5-7 years. Caesar did not have a lot of time left.

However, the effect on Octavian of Julius Caesar's dying by injury or disease while leading armies in the East at the advanced age of 60 (-ish), instead of being cut down by assassins on the Senate floor, would be significant. Octavian's "reforms" of the Roman Republic converted it into a monarchy supported by a police state, and we can assume the assassination of the previous strong man ruler motivated many of Octavian's more drastic deviations from Roman political tradition.

For example, the proscription (summary mass execution of political opponents) of 43 BC was only the second proscription, and was 4-5 times as large as the previous proscription of Sulla 40 years before (2200+ executions versus about 550 executions). Octavian also confiscated large amounts of land from Roman citizens and gave this land to army veterans following the defeat of Brutus at Philippi, in order to secure the loyalty of soldiers who would otherwise might support potential rivals. Had Julius Caesar lived another 5 years and been peacefully replaced by Octavian, Octavian would not have needed to slaughter thousands of political opponents and evict thousands of ordinary citizen farmers to secure his position in Rome and with the armies. Octavian's "reforms" to the tottering Republic could have been quite different from the Imperial path he actually imposed on Rome if assassins and civil war had not accompanied Octavian's rise to power.

 

[Garetor]

And my point is that it is unlikely Julius Caesar would have lived long enough to, starting at age 57, organize a campaign against Parthia, conquer and hold a significant swath of territory (most likely from the Syrian jump off point into Armenia), defeat the predictable counter offensive by the Parthian Emperor, return to Rome in triumph, and then do much else.

Agree to disagree on that point. Improbable is not ASB, and it's hardly beyond consideration that someone with good diet and an active lifestyle could survive into his 70's or even 80's. Augustus lived 75 years, and he had a lifetime of debilitating near-death illnesses, which makes a fair comparison point for Caesar's epilepsy. Even assuming the campaign to take a significant swathe of territory takes 10 full years, which I doubt, that gives him enough time to come back and set affairs in order before senescence truly comes. Besides, it's not as though the planned invasion was still in conception stages. At the time of his death, troops had been gathered, a colossal war chest deposited, and as I recall, Caesar was only days away from departing to join the army.

 

[Amateur]

Improbable is not ASB, and it's hardly beyond consideration that someone with good diet and an active lifestyle could survive into his 70's or even 80's. Augustus lived 75 years, and he had a lifetime of debilitating near-death illnesses, which makes a fair comparison point for Caesar's epilepsy.

The main constraint on the natural life span of Julius Caesar in this scenario would be his being on the march with his legions. Traveling with armies tended to shorten the lives of Emperors (e.g. Trajan, Hadrian), while staying in a palace in Rome (e.g. Augustus) or on the island of Capri (e.g. Tiberius) tended to extend the lives of Emperors.

At least, that is the case for the few Emperors who were not killed in battle, assassinated, or otherwise died a violent death.

Julius Caesar's plans for war with Parthia assumed the Dictator would be away from Rome for at least 3 years. After the assassination of Julius Caesar and settling scores with the assassins, Marc Antony took command of the legions assembled for the campaign against Parthia. Using the plan devised by Julius Caesar, Antony invaded Parthia and restored Judea and Armenia to Roman orbit after 6 years of fighting and heavy casualties on both sides.

 

[Garetor]

The main constraint on the natural life span of Julius Caesar in this scenario would be his being on the march with his legions. Traveling with armies tended to shorten the lives of Emperors (e.g. Trajan, Hadrian), while staying in a palace in Rome (e.g. Augustus) or on the island of Capri (e.g. Tiberius) tended to extend the lives of Emperors.

At least, that is the case for the few Emperors who were not killed in battle, assassinated, or otherwise died a violent death.

Julius Caesar's plans for war with Parthia assumed the Dictator would be away from Rome for at least 3 years. After the assassination of Julius Caesar and settling scores with the assassins, Marc Antony took command of the legions assembled for the campaign against Parthia. Using the plan devised by Julius Caesar, Antony invaded Parthia and restored Judea and Armenia to Roman orbit after 6 years of fighting and heavy casualties on both sides.

He used Caesar's overall strategy, yes, but Marc Antony is not Julius Caesar. Antony alienated allies, dithered in Egypt, and allowed his baggage train to be ambushed and destroyed. While not a bad commander, I don't think he'd make even the top 100 in any list I've seen, and he was famously afflicted by bouts of vainglory and hedonistic laziness. Now, certainly, Caesar made mistakes in his career, but Caesar was one of history's greatest commanders, noted especially for his speed, his skillful risk taking, and his improvisational skills. A different, far more capable general in the same situation as another general can have a very, very different result.

 

[Amateur]

He used Caesar's overall strategy, yes, but Marc Antony is not Julius Caesar. Antony alienated allies, dithered in Egypt, and allowed his baggage train to be ambushed and destroyed. While not a bad commander, he was famously afflicted by bouts of vainglory and hedonistic laziness. Now, certainly, Caesar made mistakes in his career, but Caesar was one of history's greatest commanders, noted especially for his speed, his skillful risk taking, and his improvisational skills. A different, far more capable general in the same situation as another general can have a very, very different result.

Julius Caesar's plan was for at least three years in the field.

Successful Roman invasions of Parthia/Persia:
The Emperor Trajan was no slouch. His war with Parthia lasted 4 years, and would have gone on much longer if the Emperor had lived longer.
(Trajan, physically active and in the field most of his adult life, suffered cardiac disease and died at age 66)
Lucius Verus commanded Roman forces for 6 years during war with Parthia.
Emperor Septimus Severus re-invaded Persia for two years, reestablishing less than half the territory conquered by Trajan and later lost.
Gallerius's war with Persia (while he was Caesar under Augustus Diocletian) lasted 4-5 years in order to reestablish the Tigris River as the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire.
Justinian commanded the Roman legions for 18 years during war between the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia.

 

[Garetor]

Great! So there plenty of time for Caesar to hurt Parthia enough to where he gets some border territory, a massive "go away" payoff, and the return of Crassus' eagles, which altogether is more than enough to achieve the adulation and majesty necessary for the discussion of the actual topic: Caesar's policies upon returning in triumph.

I really don't know why you're so fixated on proving he would HAVE to die before returning. I've been offering "Caesar returns with the eagles, secured borders, and a fat tribute" as an alternate scenario since my second post, if you found the first one too improbable. Hell, substitute a Dacian conquest, if you side with those who think Parthia was a feint. The real question is what Caesar's policy would be on returning in glory.

 

[Amateur]

I've been offering "Caesar returns with the eagles, secured borders, and a fat tribute" as an alternate scenario

Which would have been out of character for Julius Caesar. The man did not give up or leave a job half finished.

The Gallic Wars lasted 8 years, and Julius Caesar did not stop until he ran out of Gaul to conquer. If he had launched a successful invasion of Parthia it is unlikely he would have ever been satisfied with just part of the country.

Gaul was internally divided and militarily antiquated compared to Rome. Parthia was united and arguably militarily more advanced than Rome (Parthia had heavy cavalry long before it became the rage in Europe). If Gaul took 8 years....

IF Julius Caesar had lived long enough to lead a successful campaign against Parthia and return to Rome in triumph, he would have been a very old man by standards of the day and unlikely to take the field again. He probably would have spent the time left to him ensuring Octavian's succession and promoting the colonization of newly won territories in both Parthia and Gaul. In terms of the form of governance, the Dictator for Life would appoint his favorites into the various offices while pretending to preserve the Republic but would probably be a much lighter hand (i.e. far fewer executions) than Octavian actually was following his assassination.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

And my point is that it is unlikely Julius Caesar would have lived long enough to, starting at age 57, organize a campaign against Parthia, conquer and hold a significant swath of territory (most likely from the Syrian jump off point into Armenia), defeat the predictable counter offensive by the Parthian Emperor, return to Rome in triumph, and then do much else.

Successful campaigns (those resulting in added client kingdoms or provinces) against Parthia took time, on average about 5-7 years. Caesar did not have a lot of time left.

It think a semi-successful campaign could be done in three years. Octavian did something like that. The goal wouldn't be to occupy Parthia, but pry away some lands (some areas Crassus encountered offered to become client states of Rome, apparently fed up with Parthian rule), and get some tribute to revenge Crassus. "Hey I'm just outside a big city that isn't your capital but nevertheless economically valuable. I already sacked three of your cities and beat your horse archers on the field a dozen times. How about you pay me to go away?" Demolishing stuff is much easier than long term occupation.

 

[Amateur]

It think a semi-successful campaign could be done in three years. Octavian did something like that.

To the best of my knowledge, no, Octavian/Augustus never invaded Parthia.

He threatened/negotiated the return of Crassus's eagles, he did not invade.