What if Pompey had managed to defeat Caesar at Pharsalus in 48 BC and Caesar died either in battle or shortly thereafter. What exactly would have changed? Would Pompey have followed Caesar's example and established his own hegemony over Rome, or would someone else step forward immediately and take Caesar's place as head of the Populares such as Octavian or Mark Antony? Or would the Republic last for perhaps another few decades until someone else challenged the Senate?
WI: Pompey defeats Caesar
- Thread starter CenturionMagnus
- Start date
Lars Porsenna
Banned
Well, you've got to remember that Pompey never wanted hegemony over Rome. Sure, in his younger days he flaunted his ability to basically be the ruler of Rome without any official title or command, but in later years he calmed down. Due to Caesar's expert conquest of Gaul with few legions and in only ten years, Pompey was a bit scared of Caesar, and probably would have reconciled with him had it not been for warmongers Cato and Bibulus, who hated Caesar literally to death.
Now, if Caesar dies during or just after the battle (which Pompey wins), I see his legions yo-yoing between ending the war and joining Pompey, or following their better known commanders (like Antony, Calvinus, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, Gaius Trebonius, etc.) who will unite and try to continue the war at all costs, as they know that Pompey and the Senate won't be merciful.
Octavian is a complete non-entity at this point. He's a skinny 16 year-old living with his mother and stepfather in Rome; he has no political or military experience, and he isn't even preparing to join the legions yet. His success depends on whether Caesar's named him heir in his will.
A lot also depends on the masters of Rome and Italy. If whoever is in control at that time (I don't know who) is very pro-Caesar, he'll continue the fight. If he's not so concrete in his convictions and Pompey and the Senate grant him complete amnesty, he'll probably turn against his erstwhile fellow Caesarians.
Now, if Caesar dies during or just after the battle (which Pompey wins), I see his legions yo-yoing between ending the war and joining Pompey, or following their better known commanders (like Antony, Calvinus, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, Gaius Trebonius, etc.) who will unite and try to continue the war at all costs, as they know that Pompey and the Senate won't be merciful.
Octavian is a complete non-entity at this point. He's a skinny 16 year-old living with his mother and stepfather in Rome; he has no political or military experience, and he isn't even preparing to join the legions yet. His success depends on whether Caesar's named him heir in his will.
A lot also depends on the masters of Rome and Italy. If whoever is in control at that time (I don't know who) is very pro-Caesar, he'll continue the fight. If he's not so concrete in his convictions and Pompey and the Senate grant him complete amnesty, he'll probably turn against his erstwhile fellow Caesarians.
I don't think it was Bibulus or Cato that caused the civil war. I think the main person to cause it was Curio. His actions are seen as in support of Caesar, but really if you look more closely at them and their possible motives, Curio seemed to be trying to drive a wedge between the two for his own personal gain (not like he's the first tribune to attempt this, he learned from Clodius). His actions were very probably exactly what Caesar did not want, given how it made any chance for him and Pompey to reach an agreement extremely difficult, and finally, impossible. The irony about Caesar's Civil War is that neither Pompey nor Caesar wanted it.
I am doubtful also about the ability or willingness of some of Caesar's subbordinates to count on the fight. Decimus Brutus can count on clemency due to his connections with Marcus on the Pompeian side. The other commanders just don't seem to carry that much clout with the legions-don't be fooled by Antony's catapult to the top after Caesar's death OTL-that had a lot to do with him happening to be consul at the time and thus de facto leader of the Caesareans. The legions fought for Caesar-they would see little point in continuing (besides maybe a small few) and besides, Antony showed a willingness to negotiate and reconcile post-Caesar assassination OTL, so I don't see why he might not try that here.
Anyway, another important consequence of a restored republic might be the continuity of the lex Pompeia passed in 52 BC. IIRC from reading The Last Generation of The Roman Republic, it essentially forced a consul or praetor to wait 5 years before taking a province as a pro-consul or pro-praetor. This would mean candidates would be far less willing or able to spend lavishly on their election campaigns, because they can't expect a province to gain the following year to take back all their money and then some. This means a lot less corruption and extortion of the provinces, a major problem in the late republic.
Though of course, that's if it works as intended.
Isn't he Master of the Horse right now, ruling Rome for Caesar?
I don't see Anthony giving up easily. Though with the vast majority of Caesar's Legions at Pharsalus, not sure how much he could gather up to make a fight of defending the Italian peninsula. Maybe he retreats north, into Gaul or over of Hispana.
Caesar was made dictator after Pharsalus, so Mark Anthony can't have been Master of Horse yet.
Mark Anthony brought four legions to Caesar in March 48BC, before the Battle of Pharsalus. Mark Anthony was also present at the battle of Pharsalus.
IIRC Rome was run by Lucius Julius Caesar (a cousin of Gaius) at the time of the battle.
Pompey would retake Rome and the Senate would establish itself. There'd likely be a series of proscriptions against Caesar's most adamant supporters and amnesty for lesser ones. In the short term, the status quo is restored.
The problem is that the defects of the Roman constitutional order that has existed since Marius and Sulla still exists, and I don't think Pompey has any idea on what to do about it. That means stability only exists as long as Pompey lives to be arbiter of Rome. Once he dies (and he is already almost 60), his power flows to his various subordinates and other members of the optimates alliance. That recreates the unstable system of great men scheming to become best man in Rome.
The problem is that the defects of the Roman constitutional order that has existed since Marius and Sulla still exists, and I don't think Pompey has any idea on what to do about it. That means stability only exists as long as Pompey lives to be arbiter of Rome. Once he dies (and he is already almost 60), his power flows to his various subordinates and other members of the optimates alliance. That recreates the unstable system of great men scheming to become best man in Rome.
Lars Porsenna
Banned
Ah yes, that is definitely correct! Lucius had also served as Caesar's legate in Gaul.
Actually, if Caesar's legions retain a semblance of order and if whoever survives the battle (Antony, Publius Cornelius Sulla, whoever else) manages to somewhat harness them, they might follow those legates, or else find transport to Italia and follow Lucius Julius Caesar. Don't underestimate the love Caesar's legions had for him; with his death, they might be even more vehemently set against Pompey and the Senate. They're weakened, yes, but if they can escape Greece and relocate to Italia they're still in a very strong position, as their faction holds Rome.
What if Octavian was designated as Caesar's heir in Caesar's will just like OTL? Would it even be revealed, or better yet would the teenage Octavian even know what to do with this status? I'm not trying to push for Octavian to be involved in this at all, just trying to see what role he would have considering his OTL actions.
In this case, suppose that Mark Antony survived the battle and is able to retreat back to Italy. Could he wield any real political power and gain support in Rome or would he be brushed aside?
In this case, suppose that Mark Antony survived the battle and is able to retreat back to Italy. Could he wield any real political power and gain support in Rome or would he be brushed aside?
Lars Porsenna
Banned
Well, since Lucius Julius Caesar was ruling Rome at that time, he would be very involved in any revelation of the Dictator's Will. Since he didn't really like his nephew Antony and thought he was a real prick, he would take the news of Octavian's new status well. The only problem is, I don't see Octavian being in Caesar's Will at such a young age, and before any kind of official status or public service.
Octavian likely wasn't put into Caesar's will until he returned from his last Iberian campaign-where for the first time he actually got to spend a lot of time with Octavian and was impressed by Octavian's bravery in actually coming over while the fighting was still happening (and almost making a mess of it, but hey, he survived), while everyone else waited until he had securely achieved victory. There is little to no chance he is already Caesar's heir-it is likely Decimus Junius Brutus that would be-and he more than anyone would probably be interested in getting an agreement with the republicans and Pompey.
You have to remember, the senators were all looking out for their own best interests. Brutus would likely come to the conclusion that with the main focus of their civil war dead, their cause is pointless. This isn't like Sulla's civil war where both sides despised each other and were essentially actively pursuing war from the start. There was always ongoing negotiations behind the scenes, even if they meant little.
Not to mention, the republicans essentially have an almost unending supply of manpower and support to draw on-they still have support in Spain, North Africa, and all of the east. It is impressive in and of itself that Caesar managed to come out in one piece-on a number of occasions it was through his superior generalship alone that he prevailed in the years after Pharsalus (plus a little luck). Another thing-the republicans have arguably two of the best generals alive (now that Caesar is dead) in their time: Pompey and Titus Labienus (perhaps one of the most underrated Romans in history).
You have to remember, the senators were all looking out for their own best interests. Brutus would likely come to the conclusion that with the main focus of their civil war dead, their cause is pointless. This isn't like Sulla's civil war where both sides despised each other and were essentially actively pursuing war from the start. There was always ongoing negotiations behind the scenes, even if they meant little.
Not to mention, the republicans essentially have an almost unending supply of manpower and support to draw on-they still have support in Spain, North Africa, and all of the east. It is impressive in and of itself that Caesar managed to come out in one piece-on a number of occasions it was through his superior generalship alone that he prevailed in the years after Pharsalus (plus a little luck). Another thing-the republicans have arguably two of the best generals alive (now that Caesar is dead) in their time: Pompey and Titus Labienus (perhaps one of the most underrated Romans in history).
Lars Porsenna
Banned
Pompey is most definitely overrated and Labienus underrated; another underrated and surprisingly good general is Cato. People either forget about or don't know of his march from Cyrenaica to Africa with ten thousand men, losing very few in the process; he also didn't do badly at all governing his provinces and annexing Cyprus to Rome. His integrity and willingness to share his men's burdens made them love him.
Also Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, he wasn't a bad general at all. He was the only Pompeian general to actually die during the Battle of Pharsalus (though that could be more from stupidity or incompetence than bravery, it can be argued).
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Well, he does have Cicero to work with, so that could count for something. (I'm willing to bet he gets named Pater Patriae as well.)
I'm not sure Pompey is really overrated. I mean, yes, most of his major accomplishments came off the backs of others militarily (like Mithradates for example), but he was still an extremely good general. His strategy during the civil war was sound and foolproof, he just couldn't get the rest of his side on board with it. Plus, since he's always overshadowed by Caesar and people always refer to him losing to Caesar, it seems hard to justify that people OVER rate him, if you catch my drift.
I agree with Cato though.
Lars Porsenna
Banned
Well, I'd say he's usually rated as third to Caesar and Gaius Marius, though he never raised legions from scratch, he never fought a battle against a numerically superior enemy, and he never fought an enemy that hadn't already been softened up. I'd definitely put Sulla, Lucullus, and Metellus Pius ahead of him, perhaps even including Mark Antony, Decimus Brutus, Lucius Caesar, and Quintus Cicero.
I'd put him ahead of everyone but Marius and Caesar, and Sulla. I think you are really doing him a disservice here. The fact that Lucullus couldn't keep his soldiers under control, yet Pompey could says something: A good commander has the support of his men and knows how to keep them under control. Lucullus couldn't do either of those things. Still though, he's better than the rest on the list besides the 4 I mentioned.
Mark Antony was average. His execution of the Parthian campaign was a disaster, his execution of the Actium campaign was also a laughable disaster, all the more so because of him holding just about every single advantage, his execution of the Mutina campaign nearly ended in disaster....We don't know his role that well in Gaul, and his only really great military action was in getting reinforcements to Caesar.
That's true, I forgot about that. Though he won more due to Brutus' incompetence and soldiers itching for battle than anything else. After the first day, the Caesarean cause should have been done for, but since Cassius killed himself (Cassius being the one who held the loyalty of the troops, Brutus holding little to none), he left a completely inexperienced Brutus to command forces that had no trust in him. Brutus was forced by his own men to give battle in an unfavorable position, when he would have preferred, rightly so, to just wait it out and wait for the triumvirate army to pull back due to lack of food. While he does deserve credit for the victory, I think we underestimate how much it was the liberatores that lost Philippi, rather than Antony winning it.
Lars Porsenna
Banned
One thing you've got to remember, is that Lucullus spent six years in the East against Mithridates, and a lot of the men he was commanding had been there even longer. Fighting in the high, bastard mountains of Anatolia and Armenia, blazing hot summers and ball-freezing winters; these are all things that contributed to discontent. Couple that with the fact that Lucullus was a hard taskmaster as well as the quintessential aristocrat, and you have troops who aren't too crazy about him.
But he did his job. His six-year campaign constantly and consistently drove Mithridates back and he won the Siege of Mytilene (albeit a bit earlier than his official command) and the Battle of Tigranocerta very handily. Six years of his hard-ass attitude and campaign far from home meant his troops didn't quite love him in the first place, and then golden-boy Pompey's agents came along and agitated for his replacement.
Pompey's first few battles in Spain were disastrous, and it was only after a few successes of, and in tandem with, Metellus Pius that Pompey defeated the great general (there's another man I'd rate up with Marius and Caesar) Quintus Sertorius; he also never fought without numerical superiority. So you have these troops who have been slogging through shitty conditions for years with a clear end not in sight (though it was apparently near) hearing about famous Pompey rolling up Sertorius in a few years (though they're hearing it from his agents, and don't know about Metellus Pius's involvement; anyways, it's human nature to think that the grass is greener on the other side).
So after six years of toughing it out and softening Mithridates and Tigranes, Lucullus is replaced and Pompey mows down already-cut opponents.
Anyway, enough of that rant. I guess you may have a point with Mark Antony.
All valid points, but you forget about his spectacular job at clearing the seas of piracy. Also, you underestimate his job in Sicily in the civil wars.