WI: Liberators kill Mark Antony

[Emperor Shawn]

Let's say after killing Caesar, they kill Mark Antony. Maybe when he goes to meet with them, one of the Liberators panics and does something rash. Maybe Antony gets noticed by a rogue actor when he sneaks out of Rome and is murdered. Whatever the cause, Antony is dead. Without Antony, how does the ensuing Civil War play out?

 

[Alexander Helios]

Let's say after killing Caesar, they kill Mark Antony. Maybe when he goes to meet with them, one of the Liberators panics and does something rash. Maybe Antony gets noticed by a rogue actor when he sneaks out of Rome and is murdered. Whatever the cause, Antony is dead. Without Antony, how does the ensuing Civil War play out?

Maybe Pedus, Calvinus, or Hirtius could take Anthony's place in the Second Triumvirate, if a similar alliance occurs ITTL.

 

[Sertorius126]

Then I guess we’d witness the rise of Dolabella as a substitute for Antonius.

In OTL, he loudly proclaimed his allegiance to Caesar’s murderes, only to go back on it and strike a deal with Antonius. With the latter dead, Dolabella would become the most powerful authority standing, and he’d try to claim his place as Caesar’s political heir. His military record up to 44, like Antonius’, doesn’t shine neither for experience nor for talent, but at the very least, the troops knew him, he fought with them for as much as Antonius did, he could try to gain their allegiance. Young Caesar would inevitably come to the fore regardless, and he’d certainly contend with Dolabella for supremacy much like he did with Antonius. After that, it’s hard to tell what would go on, if Dolabella would rather go East anyway to gain glory against the Parthians, or if he’d go to Cisalpine Gaul like Antonius did. If he’d be a bit more politically savvy and not let Caesar’s murderers slip from his fingers, or if he’d make the same mistakes as Antonius. If he’d decide to ally with Young Caesar right away or try to oppose him. Either case, the next round of civil wars would be ready to start once again.

 

[Sertorius126]

Maybe Pedus, Calvinus, or Hirtius could take Anthony's place in the Second Triumvirate, if a similar alliance occurs ITTL.

Neither Pedus nor Hirtius had enough prestige for that, and Calvinus, loyal Caesarian he was, would more likely still side with Young Caesar.

 

[Alexander Helios]

Neither Pedus nor Hirtius had enough prestige for that,

Not necessarily true, as Pedius played an important role in the struggle against the Liberators (there's a reason it's called the Lex Pedia), and he was considered important enough that Octavian appointed him leader in Rome while he went North to meet with Anthony. As an added bonus, he was a grandnephew of Caesar, and likely successor if anything was to happen to Octavian. Hirtius was consul of Rome in the year 43BC, and played an important role negotiating between the two opposing parties. Not to mention that both had years of previous experience with the military and politics. With Anthony out of the picture, they could plausibly rise higher on the ladder. Besides, its not like Octavian was considered a household name in the year 44BC.

and Calvinus, loyal Caesarian he was, would more likely still side with Young Caesar.

Even better, as Octavian would have more incentive to ally with him against Brutus and Cassius.

 

[Sertorius126]

Not necessarily true, as Pedius played an important role in the struggle against the Liberators (there's a reason it's called the Lex Pedia), and he was considered important enough that Octavian appointed him leader in Rome while he went North to meet with Anthony. As an added bonus, he was a grandnephew of Caesar, and likely successor if anything was to happen to Octavian. Hirtius was consul of Rome in the year 43BC, and played an important role negotiating between the two opposing parties. Not to mention that both had years of previous experience with the military and politics. With Anthony out of the picture, they could plausibly rise higher on the ladder. Besides, its not like Octavian was considered a household name in the year 44BC.

It’s not about importance, Young Caesar needed a trustworthy Caesarian on his side who could legally hold the rank of consul alongside him, namely, Pedius, who had already been a pretor. All others were either away with Antonius or had decided to retire. The lex Pedia was proposed by Pedius, but obviously under guidance by Young Caesar, he needed what could look like an outside party to propose a law incriminating Caesar’s murderers.

There has never been an Octavian, Gaius Octavius’ name after March 44 was Gaius Julius Caesar with no Octavian, the most prestigious name he could possibly have. In case something had happened to him, Caesar’s heir would have been Decimus Brutus, not Pedus or Pinarius.

Even better, as Octavian would have more incentive to ally with him against Brutus and Cassius.

If he had wanted to give him that sort of power, he’d have done so in OTL. Way better to just employ him as one of his generals.

 

[Alexander Helios]

It’s not about importance, Young Caesar needed a trustworthy Caesarian on his side who could legally hold the rank of consul alongside him, namely, Pedius, who had already been a pretor. All others were either away with Antonius or had decided to retire. The lex Pedia was proposed by Pedius, but obviously under guidance by Young Caesar, he needed what could look like an outside party to propose a law incriminating Caesar’s murderers.

We are discussing a scenario where Anthony dies immediately following Caesar's assassination, so that wouldn't be a problem. Plus, Octavian didn't handpick the Triumvirate, let alone hold as much power as you're giving him credit for. In fact, he wasn't even considered the most powerful member at the time of its creation. That honor went to Anthony. The Triumvirate was more of a coalition of the most powerful men (debatable) in Rome to fight against the Liberators and restore the status quo (in theory).

There has never been an Octavian, Gaius Octavius’ name after March 44 was Gaius Julius Caesar with no Octavian, the most prestigious name he could possibly have. I

While that's partially true (his name following his posthumous adoption was Gaius Julius Octavianus Caesar), I think harping on that point is a bit too much pedantry. There is a practical reason that he's called Octavian during this period, to avoid confusion with Julius Caesar.

In case something had happened to him, Caesar’s heir would have been Decimus Brutus, not Pedus or Pinarius.

We're talking about the same Decimus Brutus that assassinated Caesar, and is currently engaged in open hostilities with Octavian. There's no way that he'd ever be considered as a possible heir by Caesar's supporters, regardless if he was in his will or not.

If he had wanted to give him that sort of power, he’d have done so in OTL. Way better to just employ him as one of his generals.

But this isn't OTL. In a situation where Anthony is dead, he could feasibly join the Triumvirate, though I'd agree that he wasn't much of a politician, and was more of a general than anything. Though again, one could say the same of Anthony.

 

[Sertorius126]

We are discussing a scenario where Anthony dies immediately following Caesar's assassination, so that wouldn't be a problem. Plus, Octavian didn't handpick the Triumvirate, let alone hold as much power as you're giving him credit for. In fact, he wasn't even considered the most powerful member at the time of its creation. That honor went to Anthony. The Triumvirate was more of a coalition of the most powerful men (debatable) in Rome to fight against the Liberators and restore the status quo (in theory).

It’s not that they left with Antonius, they already were away from Rome, save for Lepidus, who was just about to leave.

I’m not saying Caesar handpicked the triumvirate, but he did choose Pedius as his colleague, he had the power of his legions at Rome that allowed him that.

While that's partially true (his name following his posthumous adoption was Gaius Julius Octavianus Caesar), I think harping on that point is a bit too much pedantry. There is a practical reason that he's called Octavian during this period, to avoid confusion with Julius Caesar.

No man, it’s not partially, it’s true, by law his name was Gaius Julius Caesar, he refused the name Octavianus, which was only used by his enemies. Romans could choose their names even after adoption, Like Brutus, whose name in theory would have been Quintus Servilius Caepio, but he decided to keep his original name Marcus Junius Brutus. If some historians call him “Octavian” it’s just for commodity, but historians like Lindsay Powell and Adrian Goldsworthy avoid doing so, because it’s technically incorrect.

We're talking about the same Decimus Brutus that assassinated Caesar, and is currently engaged in open hostilities with Octavian. There's no way that he'd ever be considered as a possible heir by Caesar's supporters, regardless if he was in his will or not.

I don’t know if they could have prevented that, it was a man’s will after all, you can’t deny a man his inheritance, especially if Dolabella decides to get the murderers pardoned. Regardless, just pointing that Pedius wasn’t even Caesar’s second choice as heir.

But this isn't OTL. In a situation where Anthony is dead, he could feasibly join the Triumvirate, though I'd agree that he wasn't much of a politician, and was more of a general than anything. Though again, one could say the same of Anthony.

But Dolabella isn’t dead, he’s the man of the hour in such scenario, there would be no place for Calvinus.

 

[Alexander Helios]

It’s not that they left with Antonius, they already were away from Rome, save for Lepidus, who was just about to leave.

AFAIK Pedius was in Rome, Hirtius left to battle Anthony at Mutina (but this happened in 43 BC, so he would have been in Rome when Caesar was assassinated), while Calvinus' activities in the immediate aftermath of Caesar's death weren't prominent enough to be recorded (so he likely stayed in Rome).

Even if they weren't in Rome, remember, Octavian wasn't either on the Ides of March.

I’m not saying Caesar handpicked the triumvirate, but he did choose Pedius as his colleague, he had the power of his legions at Rome that allowed him that.

Don't understand your argument, since that was my point in the first place. Pedius was in a relatively powerful position in 44BC, was allied with Octavian, and was one of the most powerful people in Rome at the time of Caesar's assassination. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as prestige.

No man, it’s not partially, it’s true, by law his name was Gaius Julius Caesar, he refused the name Octavianus, which was only used by his enemies. Romans could choose their names even after adoption, Like Brutus, whose name in theory would have been Quintus Servilius Caepio, but he decided to keep his original name Marcus Junius Brutus. If some historians call him “Octavian” it’s just for commodity, but historians like Lindsay Powell and Adrian Goldsworthy avoid doing so, because it’s technically incorrect.

Huh. You learn something new everyday.

Even so, my point still stands. It's used for convenience. It's not just some historians who call him Octavian, most people refer to him as Octavian, because it's much easier and less confusing to call him Octavian than Julius Caesar. If you want to call him Julius Caesar, by all means do so, but don't be surprised when people are rightfully confused.

I don’t know if they could have prevented that, it was a man’s will after all, you can’t deny a man his inheritance, especially if Dolabella decides to get the murderers pardoned. Regardless, just pointing that Pedius wasn’t even Caesar’s second choice as heir

You are greatly misunderstanding the Late Roman Republic. It doesn't matter if hell itself freezes over, there's no way the Octavian would appoint Decimus Brutus as his successor. It doesn't matter if Caesar put him in his will. The man murdered Julius Caesar for crying out loud. Octavian is at war with him. That's not something that Octavian is going to overlook.

But Dolabella isn’t dead, he’s the man of the hour in such scenario, there would be no place for Calvinus.

IIRC, didn't Dolabella side with Brutus? Granted, it was only to confirm the consulship in his name, but I doubt that Octavian would ally with him. Much easier to take him down while he's his enemy, as he'd be a possible threat to Octavian's power. You'd have to have another POD entirety to get him in the Triumvirate.

 

[Sertorius126]

AFAIK Pedius was in Rome, Hirtius left to battle Anthony at Mutina (but this happened in 43 BC, so he would have been in Rome when Caesar was assassinated), while Calvinus' activities in the immediate aftermath of Caesar's death weren't prominent enough to be recorded (so he likely stayed in Rome).

Even if they weren't in Rome, remember, Octavian wasn't either on the Ides of March.

The point is, Caesar needed someone he could rely on in 43, and Pedius was the only one there, in 43. Of course there were others in 44, but by 43 they had all left.

Don't understand your argument, since that was my point in the first place. Pedius was in a relatively powerful position in 44BC, was allied with Octavian, and was one of the most powerful people in Rome at the time of Caesar's assassination. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as prestige.

Because his prestige and power came solely from Young Caesar, if he hadn’t needed someone reliable as colleague, Pedius would have simply faded in obscurity and we wouldn’t even had known of his death. He wasn’t prestigious enough to have any power of his own

Huh. You learn something new everyday.

Even so, my point still stands. It's used for convenience. It's not just some historians who call him Octavian, most people refer to him as Octavian, because it's much easier and less confusing to call him Octavian than Julius Caesar. If you want to call him Julius Caesar, by all means do so, but don't be surprised when people are rightfully confused.

And I get it, I’m just stressing that, technically, Octavianus never was his name. Not even Brutus called him that, he referred to him as “Octavius”.

You are greatly misunderstanding the Late Roman Republic. It doesn't matter if hell itself freezes over, there's no way the Octavian would appoint Decimus Brutus as his successor. It doesn't matter if Caesar put him in his will. The man murdered Julius Caesar for crying out loud. Octavian is at war with him. That's not something that Octavian is going to overlook.

Man, communciating in this way generates a lot of misunderstanding, and probably not using “Octavian”, but I just can’t bring myself to. I’m saying that, in case something had happened (death) to Gaius Octavius, before Caesar died, Decimus Brutus would have been Caesar’s official political heir on paper.

IIRC, didn't Dolabella side with Brutus? Granted, it was only to confirm the consulship in his name, but I doubt that Octavian would ally with him. Much easier to take him down while he's his enemy, as he'd be a possible threat to Octavian's power. You'd have to have another POD entirety to get him in the Triumvirate.

And yet Young Caesar eventually allied with Antonius, you never know. In this scenario, Dolabella would likely do his best to present himself as Julius Caesar’s political heir, and Young Caesar would have had a hard time bringing down a consul just like he had a hard time bringing down Antonius.

 

[Alexander Helios]

The point is, Caesar needed someone he could rely on in 43, and Pedius was the only one there, in 43. Of course there were others in 44, but by 43 they had all left.

But we are discussing the year 44 BC, not 43 BC.

Because his prestige and power came solely from Young Caesar, if he hadn’t needed someone reliable as colleague, Pedius would have simply faded in obscurity and we wouldn’t even had known of his death. He wasn’t prestigious enough to have any power of his own

Not at all, but okay, even assuming this is true, Octavian is still alive in this scenario. Due to this, he'd be a very likely choice to join the Triumvirate (again, assuming it exists).

And I get it, I’m just stressing that, technically, Octavianus never was his name. Not even Brutus called him that, he referred to him as “Octavius”.

This is true, but that doesn't stop the fact that he's commonly called Octavian by modern audiences, and I don't see a good reason why I shouldn't either.

Man, communciating in this way generates a lot of misunderstanding, and probably not using “Octavian”, but I just can’t bring myself to. I’m saying that, in case something had happened (death) to Gaius Octavius, before Caesar died, Decimus Brutus would have been Caesar’s official political heir on paper.

While true, that's not the discussion we are having. We are discussing a scenario in which Anthony dies post-assassination, so I don't see how this is relevant.

And yet Young Caesar eventually allied with Antonius, you never know.

But unlike Dolabella, Anthony never allied himself with the Liberators.

In this scenario, Dolabella would likely do his best to present himself as Julius Caesar’s political heir, and Young Caesar would have had a hard time bringing down a consul just like he had a hard time bringing down Antonius.

Without a side POD, I don't see why this would happen ITTL. Even if he did, he doesn't have a good claim (if any), unless he took over Rome by force.

 

[Sertorius126]

But we are discussing the year 44 BC, not 43 BC.

But in that specific case, I was talking about Caesar’s first consulate in August 43.

Not at all, but okay, even assuming this is true, Octavian is still alive in this scenario. Due to this, he'd be a very likely choice to join the Triumvirate (again, assuming it exists).

You mean Pedius? How? He didn’t even have legions backing him, and still, he’d die anyway in 43. I still don’t understand how Pedius would be so prestigious if Caesar didn’t even bother giving him a suffect consulship.

This is true, but that doesn't stop the fact that he's commonly called Octavian by modern audiences, and I don't see a good reason why I shouldn't either.

And I said I get it, people can call him Octavian if they so like.

While true, that's not the discussion we are having. We are discussing a scenario in which Anthony dies post-assassination, so I don't see how this is relevant.

Because you said several posts earlier that Pedius would have been Caesar’s heir in case Octavius died. I just corrected you on that.

But unlike Dolabella, Anthony never allied himself with the Liberators.

Who cares? Even Young Caesar aligned himself with Caesar’s murderers when it was convenient to him. Dolabella would simply shift allegiance as he did in OTL and if Young Caesar needed him, he’d embrace him with open arms, for some time.

Without a side POD, I don't see why this would happen ITTL. Even if he did, he doesn't have a good claim (if any), unless he took over Rome by force.

Why, you think Antonius did have a good claim? He just happened to be consul at the right moment and to belong to a very prestigious gens, Dolabella’s case would be much the same, and his powers as consul could make sure he could get military backing, just as Antonius did.

 

[Alexander Helios]

But in that specific case, I was talking about Caesar’s first consulate in August 43.

In that regard then you would be right, but that's not what I was talking about.

You mean Pedius? How? He didn’t even have legions backing him, and still, he’d die anyway in 43. I still don’t understand how Pedius would be so prestigious if Caesar didn’t even bother giving him a suffect consulship.

He did. He was a general in the Gallic Wars. He was praetor, commanded and led a legion to victory against an anti-Caesarian rebellion, and was legate. He even had a Roman triumph after his victory against Pompey in 45 BC, after which he was made proconsul. Not to mention he was also Caesar's grandnephew. One could argue he had much more experience than Octavian did at the time of Caesar's death.

Also, the idea you needed to command a legion or be consul to hold power in Rome is silly. There were other ways to wield power.

Who cares? Even Young Caesar aligned himself with Caesar’s murderers when it was convenient to him.

Que? I need a source for this.

Dolabella would simply shift allegiance as he did in OTL and if Young Caesar needed him, he’d embrace him with open arms, for some time.

But he didn't. I don't see why Octavian needs Dolabella so desperately when there are plenty of experienced people already on his side.

Why, you think Antonius did have a good claim?

No, and besides, he never claimed to be his heir. But at least Anthony didn't side with his murderers.

He just happened to be consul the older consul at the right moment and to belong to a very prestigious gens, Dolabella’s case would be much the same, and his powers as consul could make sure he could get military backing, just as Antonius did.

Yeah, but as I said, he didn't ally with the Liberators, a key difference. Why would Dolabella claim to be Caesar's true heir when he has historically opposed Caesar, only switching sides when it benefits him? If he did, he'd alienate both the Liberators (the side who is backing his claim as consul) and the Caesarians, which would be very bad for him.

 

[Rex Romae]

Let's say after killing Caesar, they kill Mark Antony. Maybe when he goes to meet with them, one of the Liberators panics and does something rash. Maybe Antony gets noticed by a rogue actor when he sneaks out of Rome and is murdered. Whatever the cause, Antony is dead. Without Antony, how does the ensuing Civil War play out?

Antony was a major proponent of the reconciliation between the Liberators and Caesar's veterans. Without him, actors like Master of Horse Lepidus might not be so easily dissuaded from purging Caesar's murderers right there and then - it was Lepidus who held command of the troops during this critical juncture, not Dolabella (at least AFAIK), and Lepidus did wish to storm Capitoline Hill OTL. Dolabella's authority as Consul is both of questionable legitimacy and hinges on the support of the Liberators, neither of which would contribute much to staying the Master of Horse's hand.

Now it may be that Lepidus does nothing, and something akin to the situation OTL emerges, but it would be very interesting if Lepidus does choose to wipe out the Liberators right there and then, and sets himself up as the more or less unchallenged leader of Rome for at least a little while. Who would even be alive to lead a civil war against the Caesarians? Does Octavian just seize power from Lepidus, or could Lepidus finally make a mark for himself as someone other than the person always being forgotten in the textbooks?

 

[Sertorius126]

He did. He was a general in the Gallic Wars. He was praetor, commanded and led a legion to victory against an anti-Caesarian rebellion, and was legate. He even had a Roman triumph after his victory against Pompey in 45 BC, after which he was made proconsul. Not to mention he was also Caesar's grandnephew. One could argue he had much more experience than Octavian did at the time of Caesar's death.

Also, the idea you needed to command a legion or be consul to hold power in Rome is silly. There were other ways to wield power.

Yes, he was pretor, as were tons of others, there were a lot of Cesarians way more prestigious than him, either by family name or by rank.

Silly? That’s how things worked now, it was a contest between military potentates, and the last one standing would win. You either had legions on your side, or you submitted to someone who did, Pedius could do nothing but pick the latter. Who else had power at this age who didn’t have an army behind his back? The times where a Clodius or a Milo could stir up trouble were over, and even them had some sort of urban army at disposal. Being consul gave one authority to promulgate laws, especially if the consul had the tribunes in his pocket. That’s how Antonius transferred his proconsulship from Macedonia to Cisapline Gaul, how he gave Sicily Roman citizenship and how he recalled the legions in Macedonia to Italy so that he could employ them. These are all things available to Dolabella.

Que? I need a source for this.

Dude, when he worked with the Senate to destroy Antonius and save Decimus Brutus. It didn’t last long, and Young Caesar certainly didn’t have any sympathy for him, but he was pragmatic enough to dismiss vengeance to a later moment.

But he didn't. I don't see why Octavian needs Dolabella so desperately when there are plenty of experienced people already on his side.

What if Brutus and Cassius still go East? What if Dolabella is in command of 17 legions as Antonius was and Young Caesar needs to strike a deal with him to overwhelm them? It’s not about needing him in his party, it’s about needing him out of pragmatism. It happened with Antonius, it could happen with Dolabella.

No, and besides, he never claimed to be his heir. But at least Anthony didn't side with his murderers.

He tried to establish himself as the leader of the Caesarians, that’s how he wanted to be his “heir”. Again, who cares if Dolabella sided with them for a rather brief time? Messala Corvinus fought at Philippi on the murderers’ side, and yet became one of the most important personalities within the future Augustus’ circle.

Yeah, but as I said, he didn't ally with the Liberators, a key difference. Why would Dolabella claim to be Caesar's true heir when he has historically opposed Caesar, only switching sides when it benefits him? If he did, he'd alienate both the Liberators (the side who is backing his claim as consul) and the Caesarians, which would be very bad for him.

Dolabella in OTL switched sides twice and none of the Caesarians was upset about it. Dolabella could do as he did in OTL, first claim that the murderers acted well, and then publicly disown them for also killing Antonius. Dolabella’s only chance to stay in power, since he would face no coordinated opposition, would be to establish himself as the leader of the Caesarians, just as Antonius did. Dolabella’s initial attitude was meant to get him a bribe by Antonius to go back in the fold, and that worked, he got Syria and the lion’s share of Rome’s Eastern army. It’s not that Dolabella suddenly espoused the murderers’ motivations, the first thing he did after leaving Italy was killing one of them.

 

[Alexander Helios]

Yes, he was pretor, as were tons of others, there were a lot of Cesarians way more prestigious than him, either by family name or by rank.

Did you not read my post? He was much more than just praetor.

Silly? That’s how things worked now, it was a contest between military potentates, and the last one standing would win. You either had legions on your side, or you submitted to someone who did, Pedius could do nothing but pick the latter. Who else had power at this age who didn’t have an army behind his back? The times where a Clodius or a Milo could stir up trouble were over, and even them had some sort of urban army at disposal. Being consul gave one authority to promulgate laws, especially if the consul had the tribunes in his pocket. That’s how Antonius transferred his proconsulship from Macedonia to Cisapline Gaul, how he gave Sicily Roman citizenship and how he recalled the legions in Macedonia to Italy so that he could employ them.

You do make a good point, though I still stand by my point that there are other ways to gain power in Late Republican Rome. Remind me how many legions did Octavian command at the time of Caesar's death?

These are all things available to Dolabella.

He wasn't a member of the Caesarian party.

Dude, when he worked with the Senate to destroy Antonius and save Decimus Brutus. It didn’t last long, and Young Caesar certainly didn’t have any sympathy for him, but he was pragmatic enough to dismiss vengeance to a later moment.

Again, source? He did oppose Anthony at first, but he never allied himself with Brutus.

What if Brutus and Cassius still go East? What if Dolabella is in command of 17 legions as Antonius was and Young Caesar needs to strike a deal with him to overwhelm them? It’s not about needing him in his party, it’s about needing him out of pragmatism. It happened with Antonius, it could happen with Dolabella.

That's a whole other scenario. Under the conditions present in the wake of Caesar's assassination, Dolabella allied himself with the Liberators because they supported his claim to the consulship. That is the situation in which I am stating that Dolabella wouldn't gain power among the Caesarian party. You can't just change the context of the scenario and say I'm wrong.

He tried to establish himself as the leader of the Caesarians, that’s how he wanted to be his “heir”.

Still, he never claimed power on the basis that he was Caesar's heir. He claimed power due to military and popular support.

Again, who cares if Dolabella sided with them for a rather brief time? Messala Corvinus fought at Philippi on the murderers’ side, and yet became one of the most important personalities within the future Augustus’ circle.

Messalla Corvinus never claimed to be Caesar's heir.

Dolabella in OTL switched sides twice and none of the Caesarians was upset about it.

They were still upset with him, but for other reasons. Look at the feud he had with Anthony, for example.

Dolabella could do as he did in OTL, first claim that the murderers acted well, and then publicly disown them for also killing Antonius. Dolabella’s only chance to stay in power, since he would face no coordinated opposition, would be to establish himself as the leader of the Caesarians, just as Antonius did. Dolabella’s initial attitude was meant to get him a bribe by Antonius to go back in the fold, and that worked, he got Syria and the lion’s share of Rome’s Eastern army.

Antonius had legitimacy and popular support, unlike Dolabella. None of the Caesarians would support him.

It’s not that Dolabella suddenly espoused the murderers’ motivations,

Bold of us to assume Dolabella had any political motivations deeper than gaining personal power. Look at the guy's track record. The man was only loyal to himself.

the first thing he did after leaving Italy was killing one of them.

The only reason he killed Trebonius was because he didn't allow him into the city of Smyrna. He used "justice for Caesar's assassination" as a convenient excuse that would gain him favor with the Caesarians.

 

[Sertorius126]

Antony was a major proponent of the reconciliation between the Liberators and Caesar's veterans. Without him, actors like Master of Horse Lepidus might not be so easily dissuaded from purging Caesar's murderers right there and then - it was Lepidus who held command of the troops during this critical juncture, not Dolabella (at least AFAIK), and Lepidus did wish to storm Capitoline Hill OTL. Dolabella's authority as Consul is both of questionable legitimacy and hinges on the support of the Liberators, neither of which would contribute much to staying the Master of Horse's hand.

Now it may be that Lepidus does nothing, and something akin to the situation OTL emerges, but it would be very interesting if Lepidus does choose to wipe out the Liberators right there and then, and sets himself up as the more or less unchallenged leader of Rome for at least a little while. Who would even be alive to lead a civil war against the Caesarians? Does Octavian just seize power from Lepidus, or could Lepidus finally make a mark for himself as someone other than the person always being forgotten in the textbooks?

I mean, it’d really depend on when exaclt Antonius dies, but assuming it happens before March 17, there would still be several prominent senators who would dissuade him from storming the Capitoline and killing the murders, amongst them Cicero and Dolabella, whose consulship had already been sanctioned by Caesar before his death, not to count Hirtius. Lepidus would probably be offered the rank of Pontifex Maximus to keep him quiet as in OTL. But, assuming he decides to make himself consul in place of Antonius, that he manages to declare a state of Tumultus and that he could storm the Capitoline, and kill all the murderers without any escaping, which can’t be taken for granted, then he’d still have to establish himself as the next leader of the Caesarians, to make sure Pollio, Plancus and the senators stay in line, and to deal with Sextus Pompeius lurking in Spain and with Gaius Octavius ready to claim his inheritance. Now Lepidus did have his qualities, he was a really capable diplomat, but even his most accomplished defender, Richard Weigel, doesn’t deny that he lacked charm and leadership skills. Dealing with everything mentioned above might be too much for him.

 

[Sertorius126]

Did you not read my post? He was much more than just praetor.

All pretors had been legates at one point in their lives, even before being pretors. Caninius Rebilus, Fufius Calenus, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Publius Cornelius Sulla, Calvinus, these are just some of the men in Caesar’s parth who overshadowed Pedius by family prestige, rank or both.

You do make a good point, though I still stand by my point that there are other ways to gain power in Late Republican Rome. Remind me how many legions did Octavian command at the time of Caesar's death?

None, first he thought about making himself popular, then he quickly got an army by bribing the IV and the Martia away from Antonius’ service, plus by recruiting veterans in Campania. If not for his army, the Senate would have never sent him against Antonius.

He wasn't a member of the Caesarian party.

Of course he was, Caesar brought him in Africa, he made him suffect consul for 44. How is that not being a Caesarian?

Again, source? He did oppose Anthony at first, but he never allied himself with Brutus.

He saved him at Mutina, it was a brief alliance of convenience, quickly discarded, but still an alliance. Practically all sources mention this event.

That's a whole other scenario. Under the conditions present in the wake of Caesar's assassination, Dolabella allied himself with the Liberators because they supported his claim to the consulship. That is the situation in which I am stating that Dolabella wouldn't gain power among the Caesarian party. You can't just change the context of the scenario and say I'm wrong.

Politics were way more flexible. Dolabella allied himself with the murderers? Good, two months later he and Antonius were pals again. In this case, Dolabella allied himself with the murderers? Good, now that he managed to dissuade Lepidus from killing them and gain power, he can abandon them. He did it in our timeline, he can do it in this one. Dolabella had been made consul by Caesar, he didn’t need the murderers to ratify that.

Still, he never claimed power on the basis that he was Caesar's heir. He claimed power due to military and popular support.

Never said he claimed to be the heir, just that he wanted to win the position, informally, not that he wanted to be formally known as Julius Caesar.

Messalla Corvinus never claimed to be Caesar's heir.

So? Neither would Dolabella, he’d want to be heir in the sense of being the party’s leader, nothing more.

They were still upset with him, but for other reasons. Look at the feud he had with Anthony, for example.

The feud was over after being granted Syria.

Antonius had legitimacy and popular support, unlike Dolabella. None of the Caesarians would support him.

And yet in 47 throngs of people fought by Dolabella’s side against Antonius about the remission of debts. Dolabella had as much legitimacy and support as Antonius.

Bold of us to assume Dolabella had any political motivations deeper than gaining personal power. Look at the guy's track record. The man was only loyal to himself.

In fact I’m assuming the contrary. Which of the major players weren’t just loyal to themselves? It was how you survived.

The only reason he killed Trebonius was because he didn't allow him into the city of Smyrna. He used "justice for Caesar's assassination" as a convenient excuse that would gain him favor with the Caesarians.

Exactly man, it’s all about pragmatism and convenience. That’s why he could switch sides and nobody would be too bothered.

 

[Alexander Helios]

All pretors had been legates at one point in their lives, even before being pretors. Caninius Rebilus, Fufius Calenus, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Publius Cornelius Sulla, Calvinus, these are just some of the men in Caesar’s parth who overshadowed Pedius by both family prestige and rank.

While all these men could feasibly rise to power, that doesn't mean Pedius couldn't either. Pedius also had the additional advantage of being Caesar's grandnephew, and by extension one of his heirs (Caesar left him 1/8th of his possessions).

I'm not saying he's the only person that could have replaced Anthony, but he'd be a good candidate to do so. You can't ignore that he had a pretty good claim.

None, first he thought about making himself popular, than he quickly got an army by bribing the IV and the Martia away from Antonius’ service, plus by recruiting veterans in Campania. If not for his army, the Senate would have never sent him against Antonius.

See. You've proven my point. Octavian didn't start off commanding legions, first he built up his popularity through propaganda, and armies came after. There's other paths to gaining political power, not just through the military.

Never said he claimed to be the heir, just that he wanted to win the position, informally, not that he wanted to be formally known as Julius Caesar.

But you can't be someone's heir informally. Being a heir is to inherit something from someone, and there's no way of inheriting something without actually inheriting something.

So? Neither would Dolabella, he’d want to be heir in the sense of being the party’s leader, nothing more.

My point is that Dolabella couldn't become the party's leader. He simply wasn't popular enough among the Caesarians party, and there's no shortage of ambitious Caesarians in Rome who had a better claim at the moment.

The feud was over after being granted Syria.

Which never happens ITTL, since Anthony is dead.

And yet in 47 throngs of people fought by Dolabella’s side against Antonius about the remission of debts. Dolabella had as much legitimacy and support as Antonius.

And to that I say who told Anthony not to support his bill? What side do you think Caesar was on? There's a reason Caesar took Dolabella with him on campaign: to get him out of Rome.

In fact I’m assuming the contrary. Which of the major players weren’t just loyal to themselves? It was how you survived.

Dolabella was notorious for switching sides for his own personal benefit. He didn't have ambitions to be the ruler of Rome or anything, he just wanted to be in a comfortable powerful position. He was like the dummed down Roman version of Lü Bu.

Exactly man, it’s all about pragmatism and convenience. That’s why he could switch sides and nobody would be too bothered

No one was bothered because he was a relatively minor player. It's a different story if you make a guy like that your leader.

 

[Sertorius126]

While all these men could feasibly rise to power, that doesn't mean Pedius couldn't either. Pedius also had the additional advantage of being Caesar's grandnephew, and by extension one of his heirs (Caesar left him 1/8th of his possessions).

I'm not saying he's the only person that could have replaced Anthony, but he'd be a good candidate to do so. You can't ignore that he had a pretty good claim.

But he was a grand nephew by mother, and he didn’t have Octavius’ advantage to be adopted by him. What I was trying to say is that none of those I mentioned above could rise to power, because they could not get armies to establish it, let alone Pedius.

See. You've proven my point. Octavian didn't start off commanding legions, first he built up his popularity through propaganda, and armies came after. There's other paths to gaining political power, not just through the military.

Let’s consider Amatius’ case then. He attempted to pass off as Marius’ nephew, tried to get power solely by popular support. Antonius destroyed him. Popularity could get you somewhere, but without an army, it couldn’t get you far. On the contrary, during the war against Sextus, Young Caesar, or Imperator Caesar, as he started being called, was very unpopular, and yet nobody could topple him, because he still had his army.

But you can't be someone's heir informally. Being a heir is to inherit something from someone, and there's no way of inheriting something without actually inheriting something.

It was just a manner of speaking. I was trying to say, Caesar was the leader of his party, right? Antonius tried to inherit that position after his death, that’s how he attempted to be his “heir”. Like how Sertorius inherited command of the Marian cause. It’s not like there was a will with his name on it, but he inherited the position because he was the last prominent one left. That was what I was trying to say.

My point is that Dolabella couldn't become the party's leader. He simply wasn't popular enough among the Caesarians party, and there's no shortage of ambitious Caesarians in Rome who had a better claim at the moment.

What Caesarians were actually hostile to him beside Antonius?

Which never happens ITTL, since Anthony is dead.

So there are no more feuds, since, to my memory, Dolabella had no issues with other members of the party.

And to that I say who told Anthony not to support his bill? What side do you think Caesar was on? There's a reason Caesar took Dolabella with him on campaign: to get him out of Rome.

Caesar was disappointed in both of them, but more so in Antonius, whom he left in Italy without any sort of position for 3 years. Nonetheless, he did want Dolabella out of Rome, but he could have just left him with nothing as he did with Antonius. This proves at the very least that Caesar didn’t blame Dolabella as much as Antonius, and he was still enough in his favour to be named suffect consul for 44. Dolabella was, by all means, a Caesarian.

Dolabella was notorious for switching sides for his own personal benefit. He didn't have ambitions to be the ruler of Rome or anything, he just wanted to be in a comfortable powerful position. He was like the dummed down Roman version of Lü Bu.

Neither did Antonius, and yet he found himself with half the Roman world in his control. You never know how things turn out.

No one was bothered because he was a relatively minor player. It's a different story if you make a guy like that your leader.

That’s hindsight talking. Who knows what would have happened if he had killed Cassius. If Antonius had been killed right after the Ides, we’d forever remember him as a minor player too. Dolabella was given command of a campaign against Parthia, that’s a really big thing to give to a “minor player”.