WI Julius Caesar is killed in 81 BC?

In 81 BC the young Julius Caesar, as Cinna's son-in-law, was one of Sulla's targets and fled the city. He was saved through the efforts of his relatives, many of whom were Sulla's supporters, but Sulla noted in his memoirs that he regretted sparing Caesar's life, because of the young man's notorious ambition. The historian Suetonius records that when agreeing to spare Caesar, Sulla warned those who were pleading his case that he would become a danger to them in the future, saying "In this Caesar there are many a Marius."
WI Sulla had killed Caesar then as a potential future threat? How is this altering History?
Any thoughts?
 
Sorry, Georgie boy, you won't get much of a response to most ancient or medieval PODs (except if they involve Alexander the Great). People simply don't know much about the subject.
 
One of Caesar's first impacts on Republican Rome was to nominate or at least voiciferously support Pompey being given the challenge to clear the Mediterranean of the pirate threat to the Roman Grain supply from Egypt. As the Optimates vehemently opposed the command of the expedition being given to Pompey, Caesar's support might not swing enough votes in the Senate which could have led to the ultimate failure, as well as a possible failure in the third Mithridatic War - or at least a higher Roman body count.

However, Pompey was a powerful figure in the Roman hierarchy and there are no denying his talents. He would have squared off against Cato the Younger and its quite possible that he still would have married Julia. In fact, there is little reason to think he wouldn't have commanded the legions in Gaul and become the character that Caesar had played in history - without the civil war but ending up dead at the hands of Brutus and the other senators.

Octavian is likely to have remained a plebian and died forgotten. Marc Anthony is likely to have ended up dead at the hands of his debt collectors, Ptolemy is likely to defeat his sister and rule Egypt as an independent kingdom but Rome's chief breadbasket...
 
Caesar was also a peacemaker between Pompey and M. Licinius Crassus, when their rising animosity threatened a clash after their joint consulate on 70 BC. Crassus was jealous of the military power and reputation of Pompey, made personal by the incident of Pompey's return to Rome from his conquest of Hispania, when he encountered the remnants of the Sparticists, whom Crassus had been pursuing from the south in his prosecution of the Servile War. Pompey cut down the remaining fugitives and then claimed that he was the one who had ended the war. :rolleyes:

Without Caesar's arbitration bringing about a reconciliation between (and eventually the political alliance of the Triumvirate), the civil war might have been sparked twenty years before the Rubicon (maybe by a disputed election or governorship). Pompey would have had the immediate military advantage - "I can stamp the ground and bring three legions forth", but the cautious Senate might rally around the perceptively weaker and therefore more malleable Crassus as a counterweight. Similar to the role that Pompey himself played OTL. Butterflies might accelerate or aid the revolt of Cataline, an advocate of radical reform in favor of the plebs. Maybe a Pomepy-Cataline alliance, with Pompey, the New Man after all, the champion of the People?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline

One of the characters analysis I've read between Caesar and POmpey purported that Pompey was too conscious of his humble origins to turn his back on the aristocratic system, from which he finally gained recognition and acclaim (similiar to Cicero). Caesar was of the founding families of the Republic, and he was fond of claiming blood lineage back through Aeneas and Venus. This rock-solid security of sangrael gave him the confidence to repudiate the herd-mentality of his fellow aristocrats, desperately trying to keep out new Men and wealth in a jealous clinging to ancient patrician privileges.


 
Last edited:
What about Cato the Younger, he was a vocal part of the Senate at this time and might have been more than just the leader of the "anti-Caesar" faction he was in OTL. I can't think what part he'd play though.
 
The Republic was tottering - overmighty subjects all over the shop - it wouldn't be too long before one or the other wanted to be treated like Alexander, or the Eastern potentates that they were meeting as SPQR, especially with the legions becoming more and more the personal property of their General, rather than state controlled. However, it's pretty much established JC was a top, top military commander - would it be possible without someone of his calibre and ambition to gatehr the wealth, reputation and men to make an attempt on the Senate?

What are German and Russian Emperors called? Would all Gaul be divided into three parts? What would July be called? or August - or October? We'd be missing at least three of Shakespears plays, and all that goes along with them. I'm being a bit trivial - but the impact of JC being killed in 81 is immense, and across many spheres of life.
 
With Caesar dead Pompey and Crassus start a long civil war about 70 BC which hastens the collapse of the Republic...
Idk if German tribes could have invaded Gaul after the ensuing chaos from Pompey-Crassus war...
 
Top