WI Sulla executed Caesar?

After seizing Rome and being appointed dictator, Sulla initiated a purge against all supporters of Marius. Caesar was the Son-in-Law of Cinna, an ally of Marius, and was thus initially targeted. I'll just give you the paragraph from Wikipedia that inspired this thread.

The young Caesar, as Cinna's son-in-law, was one of Sulla's targets and fled the city. He was saved through the efforts of his relatives, many of whom were Sulla's supporters, but Sulla noted in his memoirs that he regretted sparing Caesar's life, because of the young man's notorious ambition. The historian Suetonius records that when agreeing to spare Caesar, Sulla warned those who were pleading his case that he would become a danger to them in the future, saying "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla_Felix#cite_note-12

Speculate how history might have been altered had Caesar been executed in 81 BC?
 
Not too different, the concentration of power in the military along with it's independence was already entrenched. The disregard for representation of the "filthy plebs" was already in place. The dependance on slavery and all the innovation problems it brings.

Sure it won't be Caesar but someone else will come along and usurp power, other than that I'd say that a heavily autocratic empire built on the military won't last.
 
Not too different, the concentration of power in the military along with it's independence was already entrenched. The disregard for representation of the "filthy plebs" was already in place. The dependance on slavery and all the innovation problems it brings.

Sure it won't be Caesar but someone else will come along and usurp power, other than that I'd say that a heavily autocratic empire built on the military won't last.

Actually, it might be very differrennt. Caesar and his adopted heir octavian,augustus were comppetant, pprovided stability, and had deccently long ules to let things settle down. Without caesar, a revolving door of strongmen, uusurpers annd tyrants witth ppower uncertain andd changingg handss rregularly could totally stop the rise of rome as a superpower. It would still stay a mmajor power, but not tthe supreme power of otl.
 
I would say rather different.

Yes the period did see several strongmen, not all of the succsessfull. It all rather depends on what happes after Sulla reasigns. In otl Crassus and Pompey dismanteld the Sullan constitution, but if the sources are to be belived this partnership would not occur sans Ceasar. So would anyboyd else have enough power to do the same? Secondly we might not see the conquest of Gaul, somthing that was a bad thing for rome in my view (destroyd the atlantic trade network, difficult transport sistuation as its beyond the med, requierd large armed forces on the Rhine, and they proved to be quit rebelious after octavian, the romands did not addapt the Gali farming metods as well as the excess of slaves having a negative impact on the economy.
 
Also, the Conquest of Gaul likely won't happen--at least, not all in one swoop, as it did IOTL. Which may come back to haunt the Romans in the long run.
 
I would say that would be a very very good thing, for both the Romans and the Gauls.
I largely agree with you that while in the short term, the conquest of Gaul was a huge economic boom, it became a liability in the long term. However, I wonder if an independent Gaul might spell trouble for Rome from a military standpoint. Might we see a Gallic Empire rise, absorbing the smaller statelets that existed when Caesar invaded?

Regardless, A more compact Roman Empire is an interesting idea to explore (I say Empire, I suppose it is not to late to rescue the old Republican form of government, though that to me seems like a difficult proposition).

For the curious, here is a map of the western world in 86 BC, before Sulla broke the eastern alliance. So ignore Greece and Anatolia; I'm posting it as a reference for the northern border.

mariussulla_86bc.gif
 
Caesar first became important in sixties - as client of Crassus. It was with Crassus´ money that Caesar was elected as pontifex maximus, over better qualified candidates.

If Caesar is not available (because executed by Sulla, or killed by pirates in seventies) who would Crassus have promoted?
 
Caesar first became important in sixties - as client of Crassus. It was with Crassus´ money that Caesar was elected as pontifex maximus, over better qualified candidates.

If Caesar is not available (because executed by Sulla, or killed by pirates in seventies) who would Crassus have promoted?

Caesar and Crassus was allies and maybe friends and Crassus support Caesar and his candidacy but Caesar never was a client of Crassus...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
This would have very significant effects. Obviously, a great many ambitious politician/generals (same thing back then) would have vied for control of the Republic. But none of them would have had the political and military skill of Caesar.
 
Top