WI Pompey had been less hasty

Julius Caesar's greatest triumph came in 48BC, when he defeated the army of the great general Pompey Magnus at Pharsalus in northern Greece. Caesar's victory was so significant because Pompey held all of the advantages; Caesar's legions were starving and demoralized before the battle. However, Pompey was forced to attack by a paranoid and inexperienced group of senators, and so lost the battle when waiting another week would almost certainly have resulted in a decisive victory. So, what would happen if Pompey ignores the Senate for another seven days?
 
I doubt he'd simply ignore them - that would be a little suicidal politically. If however, their messengers are simply delayed for a couple of days.
 
If he wins a big enough battle then the opinions of the senators may not matter. The senate refused JC's re-entry into Italy at one point, which is why 'crossing the Rubicon' means what it does.

And if most of the senators with him 'die heroically in battle', then they won't even be able to conspire against him when everyone returns to Rome.
 
So Pompey presumably beats Caesar after waiting a bit longer. The POD is that Pompey points out that he has "Magnus" in his name for a reason, and he is in command of the Legions, and the Senators, being unable to change things, accept his decision.

So now the question is what happens next? Caesar and Antony were both at the Battle of Pharsalus, so would either die in the battle, be captured, or retreat after the battle. The core of Caesar's army, his veterans from Gaul, was at Pharsalus, so he is going to have to raise new troops. Caesar had pacificied Spain and he still controlled Gaul, so he could retreat west, and try to raise new troops there.

Caesar could be finished though. He might be able to offer further resistance, but with the loss at Pharsalus he is going to have a tough time. The Optimates split OTL, with Pompey leaving the Republic and going to Egypt to try and raise new funds and troops, and others to Africa to continue the rebellion. Basically I think the situation is desperate for whomever losses the battle.

So in 48-47 Pompey returns to Rome and retakes the city. Many of the Senators and other prominent supporters of Caesar beg the forgiveness of the victorious Optimate faction. Caesar is in Gaul and Antony in Spain, trying to raise new Legions to continue the Civil War.

Now does Pompey (who would be elected Dictator once he retakes Rome) initiate a round of proscriptions in order to fund the final campaign against Caesar (and destroy Caesar's base of support in Rome if Pompey suffers any reverses)? If he does proscribe, then is the young Gaius Thurinus, Caesar's grandnephew, among those who die?

If Pompey wins the civil war with Caesar, then I think that he would follow in the footsteps of Sulla, and support the Optimates in their vision of the Roman Republic. This is going to mean the Republic gets to limp on for a few years more as the Republic, without OTL rounds of war between the pro and anti Caesar forces.

If Gaius Thurinus is allowed to live, then I think that he will end up as the leaders of the Populares faction. He is the logical heir of Caesar, and was a keen political animal. Even without Caesar's inheritance, he will have Caesar's legacy as a champion of the Populares faction.

In order for Thurinus to get to a position where he can be an effective leader however, he is going to have to get a provincial command where he can do some foreign conquest. Perhaps Thurinus become Brittanus or Germanus?
 
Interesting MC.
Perhaps G. Octavius Thurinus pulls a Gaul and ends up like Julius did in OTL :D

That's what I was thinking.

With this extra time, there is the possibility that the big conquest that every Roman leader wanted, Parthia (Crassus tried and failed, Antony and Caesar were going to try, Pompey wanted to) is actually gone after. Whomever conquers Parthia (or at least Mesopotamia up to the Zagros Mtns.) is going to get vast, VAST wealth with which to reshape the Roman political landscape.

The Republic continuing under the rule of the Optimates is going to probably conquer more territory, as Roman pro-consuls attempt to gather wealth for domestic political ambitions. Egypt would definitely be conquered, since its domestic politics are going to continue to need Roman intervention, and its grain is necessary for Rome. The wealth from a conquered Egypt (and the installation of supporters as its administraters) would be base for a domestic political struggle. Britain too, maybe Germany.
 
That's what I was thinking.

With this extra time, there is the possibility that the big conquest that every Roman leader wanted, Parthia (Crassus tried and failed, Antony and Caesar were going to try, Pompey wanted to) is actually gone after. Whomever conquers Parthia (or at least Mesopotamia up to the Zagros Mtns.) is going to get vast, VAST wealth with which to reshape the Roman political landscape.

The Republic continuing under the rule of the Optimates is going to probably conquer more territory, as Roman pro-consuls attempt to gather wealth for domestic political ambitions. Egypt would definitely be conquered, since its domestic politics are going to continue to need Roman intervention, and its grain is necessary for Rome. The wealth from a conquered Egypt (and the installation of supporters as its administraters) would be base for a domestic political struggle. Britain too, maybe Germany.

Very interesting ideas! :D In the end though, I think the Republic is pretty much doomed to fall to a "Caesar" type figure, but who is plausible? Gaius Octavian? I think it's unlikely, since, for all his undoubted political skill, Octavian-Augustus was never a charismatic man. I could see him becoming the Crassus of TTL, shifty, powerful, but always in the background.
How about Marcus Agrippa siezing control of the Republic around 15BC or so?
 
Marcus Agrippa became as famous as he did mostly thanks to Octavian. He would most likely be a client of Octavian, who I can still see becoming a very prominent figure in the republic, even if not to the point of OTL; he didn't necessarily need charisma if he could work the senate, something which he proved he could do very well.
 
Is there anyone with the charisma to be like Julius?
Would the lack of a popular figure actually benefit the Republic since there is no one man to invest the power in causing those succession issues on transition to a monarchy?
Could there be a smooth transition?
 
Is there anyone with the charisma to be like Julius?
Would the lack of a popular figure actually benefit the Republic since there is no one man to invest the power in causing those succession issues on transition to a monarchy?
Could there be a smooth transition?
There had been men like Ceaser in the past, no reason to think there won't be more in after him.

The Republic was all but doomed by the time Ceaser came along, but I still can't see it ever becoming a monarchy willingly. Even under Octavian, the republic continued to "exist": even if Augustus had all the real power, he made sure that the senators felt included, and he was never formally crowned king or emperor, he was Pater Patriae and Princeps, father of his country and first among equals.
 
Caesar wasn't the man who overthrew the Republic, it was Sulla in the generation before him. Once Sulla moved his troops into Rome in order to impose his will on the Republic, the Republic ended.

The difference between Sulla and Caesar wasn't method so much as policy. Sulla allied himself with the Optimates, and made pro-Optimate changes to the Roman Constitution, so the Senate supported him. Post-Sulla, many of his pro-Optimate changes started to get wittled away, something that really bothered the Optimates in the Senate. When Pompey began to fear Caesar, the Optimates saw their chance and tried to use Pompey to destroy Caesar and restore the Sulla-era Constitution (or at least stop the post-Sulla slide toward the Populares). Caesar, a man who embraced the Populares agenda, decisively beat the Optimates and their ally of convience Pompey.

If Caesar had won the civil war against Pompey and then supported the Optimate agenda, then there wouldn't have been a problem. That he acted to enact the Populares agenda was what ended up costing him his life.

Marc Antony and Octavian then destroyed the assassins (who were the last Optimates), ending the Optimate-Populares rivalry. With the factional dispute in Rome over, the only question was who would lead the Populares as Caesar's successor. Octavian won the war against Antony, and began the Princepate.

Basically, the Optimate-Populares split was the defining issue in Roman politics. By the time of Caesar (by the time of the Gracchi really) it had apparently become impossible for the two sides to compromise constitutionally. The only avenue for active disagreement became civil war. The Populares stood for the vast under-represented majority, the Roman citizen-mob, who demanded changes to the Roman Constitution. The Optimates stood for a small Senatorial elite who claimed to be protecting the Republic in its orginal form in order to perpuate their own dominance of the Republic. This fued would only end once the Populares won, because while the Optimates could be destroyed, it wasn't possible for victorious Optimates to keep down the (legitimiate) grievances of the Populares for long.

So, if Pompey won the civil war against Caesar, then we would probably see a re-run of Sulla's dictatorship. Pompey makes pro-Optimate changes, and his victory and loyal veterans keep the pro-Caesarians at bay. Octavian may be able to make himself a powerful politican, but he clearly lacked military ability. Without an ally like Agrippa to aid him, Octavian will not be able to gain the military victories that are necessary for Populares reforms.

I like the idea of Octavian as a Crassus figure, plotting and financing other Populares (military) politicans.
 
Top