WI Julius Ceasar Dies Earlier (post Pharsalus)

Supposing Julius Ceasar was killed sometime following his victory over Pompey (48 BC) but prior to his final return to Rome (September 45 BC)? Some possible opportunities:

  • Falls in Siege of Alexandria (late 48 to early 47 BC)
  • Cassius assassinates him in Tarsus (May 47 BC)
  • Falls at Battle of Munda (March 45 BC)
 
Last edited:
Rome would be in a bit of a mess, to say the least. Probably someone else from a noble birth would probably come out of the darkness and start/continue the path to either civil war or an Empire-like system. The Republic had clearly failed by that point, as Julius' blatant ignorance of the Senate's wishes demonstrated.

- BNC
 
Rome would be in a bit of a mess, to say the least. Probably someone else from a noble birth would probably come out of the darkness and start/continue the path to either civil war or an Empire-like system. The Republic had clearly failed by that point, as Julius' blatant ignorance of the Senate's wishes demonstrated.
Anyone else agree with this? Disagree? If the former, anyone have ideas for who could fit the bill?
 
Let's take Munda as an example.

Most likely opportunity is when Caesar personally gets involved in the fighting in the right flank, taking command of the Legio X. If he dies early in the attack, his troops likely lose heart, and to be honest, Caesar's army goes down - frankly, it was bloody impressive he won that battle at all. In all likelihood, Mark Anthony takes control of the Caesarian faction - Caesar hasn't yet had time to deposit his new will recognising Octavian yet (he did this as a result of the Hibernia campaign, after all), and there's few others to potentially offer Anthony a challenge. ... Unless, rather ironically, it's someone like Marcus Brutus! (I actually love that idea as a plot twist...). This starts a new civil war between the Pompeian forces (who have just had a massive morale boost) and the 'Caesarian' forces. I'd still give odds to the Caesarians to win, unless the Pompeians manage a very impressive break-out of Spain. Long term, options include a) endless civil wars unless the Roman 'Republic' is broken up into successor kingdoms, b) someone like Octavian taking power, or c) a borderline ASB reformer of the Republic - in effect, someone like Solon for the Athenians (or a much more successful Gracchus!). As I say, borderline ASB.

If Caesar is simply wounded and dies of his wounds sometime later, we get a few more options. One of them would include Caesar naming Octavian as his heir on his death-bed - in front of the whole army. At that stage, Octavian gets a much stronger hand than previously - he now has Caesar's money and men, rather than his borderline ASB luck that gets him out of his original problems. There would undoubtedly still be more civil war (the death of Caesar almost inevitably has that effect), but I'd give good odds at that stage Octavian ends up ruling the Empire. Quite probably, with less bloodshed than happened OTL.
 
I think any scenario that has Caesar die but not murdered leads to some reconciliation. Antony was in favor of this even IOTL. If the civil war continues it will be on the pompiean terms. The republic will probably survive in some bastardized form for another generation.
 
Most likely opportunity is when Caesar personally gets involved in the fighting in the right flank, taking command of the Legio X. If he dies early in the attack, his troops likely lose heart, and to be honest, Caesar's army goes down - frankly, it was bloody impressive he won that battle at all. In all likelihood, Mark Anthony takes control of the Caesarian faction - Caesar hasn't yet had time to deposit his new will recognising Octavian yet (he did this as a result of the Hibernia campaign, after all), and there's few others to potentially offer Anthony a challenge. ... Unless, rather ironically, it's someone like Marcus Brutus! (I actually love that idea as a plot twist...).
Oh, now I really like this idea too; so if I'm reading this right, we could have Marcus Brutus heading the "Ceasarian" faction against the "Pompeians"?
I think any scenario that has Caesar die but not murdered leads to some reconciliation. Antony was in favor of this even IOTL. If the civil war continues it will be on the pompiean terms. The republic will probably survive in some bastardized form for another generation.
I'd say the Pompeians have a rough road surviving long term, so reconciliation sounds likely; what would the surviving "bastardized" republic look like, compared to otl's "empire"?
 
[QUOTE="John Fredrick Parker, post: 13260646, member: 14304]
I'd say the Pompeians have a rough road surviving long term, so reconciliation sounds likely; what would the surviving "bastardized" republic look like, compared to otl's "empire"?[/QUOTE]
Initially it would probably be a lot of nepotism. Basically appointing praetors and consuls, and governors, wrapping up resistances. Think kind of the immediate post Marian-Sulla civil war. Then you'll eventually move to a more normalized state of things, a return to normalcy if you will, with the alliance blocks becoming more fluid again as the immediate threat of more strife dissipates.
 
Oh, now I really like this idea too; so if I'm reading this right, we could have Marcus Brutus heading the "Ceasarian" faction against the "Pompeians"?

Not going to lie, it's not exactly likely, considering Brutus fought against Caesar.

However, Brutus was urban praetor under the appointment of Caesar (not entirely sure whether that's for 44 or 45BC) a reasonably significant honour. Mark Anthony by contrast was kind of ignored by Caesar after his debacle in 47BC and, importantly, was only a private citizen in 45BC. Indeed, since Caesar was sole consul that year, Brutus actually holds the most senior rank in Rome at the time.
Frankly, my knowledge is not up to saying exactly what troops were in Rome/Italy at the time. However, considering even with the forces he did bring with them Caesar was still forced to raise new recruits in Hispania, there's probably not a huge number around - otherwise, he'd have taken them in the first place. In any case, if he moved swiftly, I believe Brutus would have reasonable odds to claim their loyalty (if nothing else, he controls the money in Rome).

Plutarch says the following (Dryden's translation):
Caesar, being about to make his expedition into Africa against Cato and Scipio, committed to Brutus the government of Cisalpine Gaul, to the great happiness and advantage of that province. For while people in other provinces were in distress with the violence and avarice of theirgovernors, and suffered as much oppression as if they had been slaves and captives of war, Brutus, by his easy government, actually made them amends for their calamities under former rulers, directing moreover all their gratitude for his good deeds to Caesar himself; insomuch that it was a most welcome and pleasant spectacle to Caesar, when in his return he passed through Italy, to see the cities that were under Brutus's command, and Brutus himself increasing his honour and joining agreeably in his progress.

Now several praetorships being vacant, it was all men's opinion that that of the chiefest dignity, which is called the praetorship of the city, would be conferred either upon Brutus or Cassius; and some say that, there having been some little difference upon former accounts between them, this competition set them much more at variance, though they were connected in their families, Cassius having married Junia, the sister of Brutus. Others say that the contention was raised between them by Caesar's doing, who had privately given each of them such hopes of his favour as led them on, and provoked them at last into this open competition and trial of their interest. Brutus had only the reputation of his honour and virtue to oppose to the many and gallant actions performed by Cassius against the Parthians. But Caesar, having heard each side, and deliberating about the matter among his friends, said, "Cassius has the stronger plea, but we must let Brutus be first praetor." So another praetorship was given to Cassius; the gaining of which could not so much oblige him, as he was incensed for the loss of the other. And in all other things Brutus was partaker of Caesar's power as much as he desired: for he might, if he had pleased, have been the chief of all his friends, and had authority and command beyond them all, but Cassius and the company he met with him drew him off from Caesar. Indeed,he was not yet wholly reconciled to Cassius, since that competition which was between them: but yet he gave ear to Cassius's friends, who were perpetually advising him not to be so blind as to suffer himself to be softened and won over by Caesar, but to shun the kindness and favours of a tyrant, which they intimated that Caesar showed him, not to express any honour to his merit or virtue, but to unbend his strength, and undermine his vigour of purpose.

Neither was Caesar wholly without suspicion of him, nor wanted informers that accused Brutus to him; but he feared, indeed, the high spirit and the great character and the friends that he had, but thought himself secure in his moral disposition. When it was told him that Antony and Dolabella designed some disturbance, "It is not," said he, "the fat and the long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and the lean," meaning Brutus and Cassius. And when some maligned Brutus to him, and advised him to beware of him, taking hold of his flesh with his hand, "What," he said, "do you think that Brutus will not wait out the time of this little body?" as if he thought none so fit to succeed him in his power as Brutus. And indeed it seems to be without doubt that Brutus might have been the first man in the commonwealth, if he had had patience but a little time to be second to Caesar, and would have suffered his power to decline after it was come to its highest pitch, and the fame of his great actions to die away by degrees...



In many ways, Brutus would be an ideal candidate for a rather dystopian fall of Roman Republic TL. If he moved swiftly and efficiently, he could easily claim to be Caesar's heir (by pointing at Mark Anthony's current disfavour, and maybe even the rumours of his own paternity). On the other hand, he might also be rather acceptable to the Optimates, as he did fight for them. However, the Pompeians are now in a very strong position at Munda, and would likely refuse to reconcile easily. Regardless, you could easily end up with a Brutus being clearly the primus inter pares - and not want to be. A Brutus desperately attempting to shore up a failing Republic, whilst Anthony attempts to seize power in Egypt (you know he would), the Pompeians continuing to hold out in Spain/Africa, a likely rebellious Gaul...

Or, you know, not a horrible ugly death of the Roman Republic. Whatever works.
 
Oh he's not initially in Egypt - I'm just saying he might reasonably go there to build up power. It would most likely be somewhere in the East, considering - the cities of Asia Minor would also work.

As for why he wouldn't go for reconciliation - maybe he would. Maybe he wouldn't - particularly if he's not at the top table, by a sheer fluke of timing. I'd also say that if (and it's a big if) the Pompeians / others are already engaging in civil war, he'd probably try to seize his moment.
 
Oh he's not initially in Egypt - I'm just saying he might reasonably go there to build up power. It would most likely be somewhere in the East, considering - the cities of Asia Minor would also work.

As for why he wouldn't go for reconciliation - maybe he would. Maybe he wouldn't - particularly if he's not at the top table, by a sheer fluke of timing. I'd also say that if (and it's a big if) the Pompeians / others are already engaging in civil war, he'd probably try to seize his moment.
I doubt it. For starters, if he goes to Egypt, he's as good as dead. Cleopatra is not an idiot, and would immediately recognize her cause is better served being in the good graces of the powerbrokers in Rome. If Antony is going to go anywhere, it's where there are Roman legions that he might be able to co-opt. So if he can't co-opt Caesar's old legions, his military uprising isn't going to last. The East is, if anything, full of Pompeian loyalists, which is why the liberatores were so successful in establishing a strong base of operations there after Caesar's OTL murder.
 
Actually think this is the ideal time for Antony to flourish...pre-Alexandrian hubris, post being castigated for his idyls in To e, but still IMO clearly THE man in the Caesarian camp, especially with the troops. I think he stays focused longer than OTL, and even there he was pretty formidable.

Is it enough, though? Depending on when, this is a major shot in the arm for Pompeian forces and/or the slightly less entrenched status quo folk like Cicero. And, yes...maybe Brutus emerges front and center, or maybe (if you take him at his word) his sad battle's won and he can stay in the shadows. Lepidus is another potential player, and Cassius.

Depending on when, though, IMO the big potential player/rival to Antony is Labienus. History's been a bit unkind to him, but he had the stuff of greatness about him and might have proven Antony's equal or better.
 
Actually think this is the ideal time for Antony to flourish...pre-Alexandrian hubris, post being castigated for his idyls in To e, but still IMO clearly THE man in the Caesarian camp, especially with the troops. I think he stays focused longer than OTL, and even there he was pretty formidable.

Is it enough, though? Depending on when, this is a major shot in the arm for Pompeian forces and/or the slightly less entrenched status quo folk like Cicero. And, yes...maybe Brutus emerges front and center, or maybe (if you take him at his word) his sad battle's won and he can stay in the shadows. Lepidus is another potential player, and Cassius.

Depending on when, though, IMO the big potential player/rival to Antony is Labienus. History's been a bit unkind to him, but he had the stuff of greatness about him and might have proven Antony's equal or better.
The problem is, if Caesar is killed as a result of losing in battle, it's virtually game over. IOTL he was assasinated after eliminating the Pompeian forces. Here, there is an extant Pompeian army that just crushed his army in battle. They are more likely to just surrender than anything else.
 
The problem is, if Caesar is killed as a result of losing in battle, it's virtually game over. IOTL he was assasinated after eliminating the Pompeian forces. Here, there is an extant Pompeian army that just crushed his army in battle. They are more likely to just surrender than anything else.

Yeah, depending on when/how, that's a very real possibility. Also depends on quality/status of subbirdinate commanders present at the time...I think Munda's vulnerable because most of his 'name' lieutenants weren't present, so if he falls there it could quickly become a fatal rout.

What won't happen is a peaceful return to business as usual. The Gracchi and Marius/Sulla had let that genie part way out of the bottle, but by now it's in full flight and I don't see it going back without major unpheavel still to come. And even if they try, it'll require an entirely new chain of command structure or you'll keep seeing generals generate more loyalty than Rome, with predictable results.

I'd really like to see a Labienus TL. Maybe the most underrated Roman commander, seriously talented guy. Reminds me a bit of Marius as a commander, from what we can gather.
 
Seeing as he was with the Pompeians at this point, are we to assume he takes over command from Gnaeus Pompey?

I'm not even all that certain he wasn't already really in charge, militarily speaking. Pompey's name had huge cache, but Labienus was considered a military genius in his own right...a significant coup even when Pompey the Great was still around. In fact, had Pompey heeded Labienus' advice in Italy (knowing Caesar's tendencies, he correctly deduced that Caesar's aggression was probably masking a pretty thin approach force, and wanted to take them in detail. Pompey, to be fair occupied with juggling a great many issues/egos, preferred to excercise caution and retired to gathered his forces. It can also be argued that this was the correct decision, Pharsalus notwithstanding.)

Labienus seems to have certainly been commanding the cavalry/left side at Munda, and this was the position of decision Caesar himself favoured in the field. Moreover, though I can't recall where I read this, I think Caesar seems to have accorded him rites normally reserved for the opposing commander.

Many historians consider him to have assumed control with the evacuation of Thapsus, and though it's a bit confusing as the forces are more often called Pompeian than Optimates or Republicans at this point, I think I'd probably guess that Labienus' voice was the final word on military decisions. Whether he was excercising any political authority...or even wanted to...is probably more questionable.
 
Top