WI : Julius Caesar isn't assassinated.

So yeah, as title really.

One of the themes I've rarely seen is a surviving Caesar TL / Discussion.

So here we go, assuming that the assassins are caught/stopped/wuss out, what are the consequences?
 
Would Octavian (who is still Caesar's heir) still evolve into Augustus without his baptism in cuththroat politics so early in his life (he was 18 when Caesar was assassinated). Would that lack of experience make him stumble more than in OTL?
 
Would Octavian (who is still Caesar's heir) still evolve into Augustus without his baptism in cuththroat politics so early in his life (he was 18 when Caesar was assassinated). Would that lack of experience make him stumble more than in OTL?
Unlikely, so long as he remains intelligent he would likely absorb Caesar's lessons.
 
Caesar planned war against Parthia so we would see one conflict more between Rome and Parthians. Another thing is who would win. But probably Caesar on some point try purge senate from potential enemies.
 
Unlikely, so long as he remains intelligent he would likely absorb Caesar's lessons.

To be fair, working together they'd likely be a powerful force.

I am curious as to what might happen between Caesar, Octavian and Caesarion. Octavian was adopted, but Caesarion is his son by Cleopatra. It could be interesting to see Julius cede power to Octavian, with Octavian (assuming no sons in this ATL) perhaps adopting Caesarion himself (assuming Caesarion makes the move to becoming a full Roman in some way). Alternatively, if O and C are friendly - they could marry their children together.

Having more of Caesars family in power could allow the dynasty to flourish and create an almost dynastic system in time - be it the Julian or the Ptolemaic branches of the family.

I wonder if a TL where Egypt and Rome are bound together in perpetual alliance might have significantly different geopolitics. Rome would still get all of its bread, and at least immediately Egypt still relies on Rome - but if they're practically in union between the two branches of the Caesar-Families, could Egypt be the one to project force in the Red Sea whilst Rome makes a move on Parthia?

I could see such a union lead to Egypt spending its Grain-Gold on the expansion of the Pharaohs Canal - if only to allow them to exert greater power on the Red Sea and Arabia.

Such an arrangement might lead to another unusual feature - the establishment of a Caesar in Persia - if you have a Caesar in Egypt, and the Caesar in Rome - Caesar in Persia as a result of a campaign isn't unreasonable if the precedent holds in Egypt. Perhaps an alternative fate for alt-Tiberius/alt-Drusus?
 
It's possible that the Empire could be partitioned early, Ceasarion gaining the east (including Egypt probably) and Octavian the West. That could, potentially, lead to a stronger empire in the short term; if the Eastern Empire can secure Mesopotamia for example, either as a province or a client state, that would basically neuter Persia which in turn means a quiet eastern border (barring the odd Nomadic invasion). Alternately the West could push the frontier forward into Germany, with a border on the Weser or the Elbe instead of the Rhine. Incorporating Dacia would also behoove both empires, as the Carpathians make for a better border than the Danube.
 
It's possible that the Empire could be partitioned early, Ceasarion gaining the east (including Egypt probably) and Octavian the West. That could, potentially, lead to a stronger empire in the short term; if the Eastern Empire can secure Mesopotamia for example, either as a province or a client state, that would basically neuter Persia which in turn means a quiet eastern border (barring the odd Nomadic invasion). Alternately the West could push the frontier forward into Germany, with a border on the Weser or the Elbe instead of the Rhine. Incorporating Dacia would also behoove both empires, as the Carpathians make for a better border than the Danube.

Octavian wouldn't give up the much-richer East so easily, as he proved IOTL.
 

trajen777

Banned
From my understanding i think He does a Sulla. He was tired of the politics and had set things partially his way with reforms etc.
1. He leaves a cable of supporters pre his travels to fight in Persia (i think he had the power to nominate 5 years of counsl in advance)
2. His reformed and centralized gov continues to centralize
3. Anthony goes with him East
4. Reading some of his preparations for the eastern campaign (Balesta on wagons, Armenia Cav, light Moor cav) would have given him a highly prob opportunity to win
5. I can see a 5 / 7 year campaign (think Gaul) with massive slaughter to the tribes that would not support the Romans and excellent rewards for those who did
6. I think he would have died on campaign or shortly after his return. (Age)

Long Term

ON a positive note
1. More stable gov - not a king
2. Division of the empire with Egypt to the west and no Constantinople but Antioch taking its place. This would give the western empire a much more stable financial balance
3. More trade to China, India, and spices which gives the Eastern Empire an even stronger financial postition

On Negative
1. Caesars constitutional changes create the centralization without a clear succession so they lose Persia in the long run
 

Skallagrim

Banned
What is all this talk about the Republic being abolished? Just because we now have dictatorship-for-life doesn't make us any less a Republic! The Dictator serves the Senate and the People of Rome, after all. My fellow Romans, surely none of you would dare call our very Republican system... a monarchy? That kind of seditious talk is something I'd expect only from a Parthian spy!

---

...but seriously, Caesar's fate in OTL does reveal that he'd made some serious errors in judgment when it came to forgiving certain enemies and expecting their forgiveness in turn, and more generally that he overestimated the security of his position. This is going to be a problem even if the plot on his life is somehow averted. For starters, even if the conspirators are somehow caught (rather than the whole thing being called off for now), Caesar must then choose between being very harsh and killing all serious enemies (which is what Augustus did in OTL), or again only kill the clear culprits and try to soothe all fence-sitters with his magnanimous attitude.

The former option will really harm his reputation, making all his enemies' accusations seem justified in hindsight Augustus in OTL played his mass murder very smartly, allowing his fellow Triumviri to indulge as well - even when it cost him friends - so that the blame was shared. He also had the advantage of later emerging victoriously out of a more 'honest' power struggle, and then had decades to have his people write the official histories. That's a pretty rare confluence of favourable conditions. Caesar might not be so lucky. Truly "cleaning house" might let him consolidate power during his life-time, but instead of, well, Caesar... history will mark him as a mass-murdering tyrant, while I bet his would-be assassins later get vindicated as the brave heroes who tried and failed to save the Republic.

The latter option, on the other hand, ensures that the underlying threat remains. Those who actually hate Caesar remain in positions of power, biding their time. And when he goes off on his Parthian campaign... well, the Dictator being very far away is a really good starting position for a coup at home, wouldn't you say? Gives you time to rally your forces for when he comes back.

And then there's the other option, which is simply that he invades Parthia and fails. He doesn't even have to die. If he does, we get something like OTL's succession struggles, but a bit later. But if he fails but survives, his reputation of glory is tarnished, making the aforementioned coup at home ever more likely...

Bottom line: historically speaking, Caesar's killers likely did him a favour. He died before he could mess things up. Sure, he might have lived on and succeeded in all he attempted, but the chances that things would have ended badly are considerably greater.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If Caeasar had waged a successful campaign against the Parthians how would this have affected Parthia and Iran?

Would the state have been able to reconsolidate? Or would Iran be heading for a decade or more of civil war?
 
You sound like a nostalgic senator suddenly coming to a nasty conclusion. :p

Well, I do think democracies- for all their
flaws- are better than monarchies(& yes, I
know the Roman Republic was more in the
nature of an oligarchy than a democracy as
we now define the term. But for its day it
was- @ least for a while- fairly advanced).
 
Last edited:
If he uncovers the plot, it might be that he delays his parthian campaign to focus on reforms that strengthen his position and his political goals.
Its quite possible that he dies long before he heads east again; remember that he was starting to have many health problems before his assassination, possibly because of epilepsy or some other disorder. He may even be forced to retire after a particularly nasty stroke.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Does anyone think he could actually complete his planned trek around the Black Sea and through Eastern Europe back to Rome?
 
Does anyone think he could actually complete his planned trek around the Black Sea and through Eastern Europe back to Rome?

He came very close to getting his Army massacred once, at Alesia.

So Highly unlikely. He was ageing. The Parthians would be tough, and he would not be able to loot fixed supply sources from the Nomadic Scythians like he did in Gaul.

Hopefully he would die and lots of Romans would die with him, weakening Rome long term.

I can think of no one more deserving to having his head on a stake by angry natives.
 
Last edited:
Well, I do think democracies- for all their
flaws- are better than monarchies(& yes, I
know the Roman Republic was more in the
nature of an oligarchy than a democracy as
we now define the term. But for its day it
was- @ least for a while- fairly advanced).
Only for men. The average woman was worse off than the neighbouring monarchies.
 
Top