-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Pikeman85 said:
He's glorified and in a sense held in high regard, like all the "Great Men" who accomplished much but died before they could show (much of) their negative sides. Like Alexander the Great.
History shows a feeling of admiration towards Julius Caeser without showing how ruthless he was
Roman historians showed him to be a great general who brought order to Rome and was killed by traitors
Roman historians showed him to be a great general who brought order to Rome and was killed by traitors
Last edited:
Tambourmajor said:
Probably not. But Cleo would have some scheme to get Caesarion into his full inheritance.
Ming said:
And Caesarion could have made himself the emperor instead of Octavianus.
The people of Rome had never really accepted that Julius Caeser was the father of Cleopatra's son
If Julius Caeser's son did become the emporer how long would his riegn have lasted ?
would Octavian assasinat him ?
If Julius Caeser's son did become the emporer how long would his riegn have lasted ?
would Octavian assasinat him ?
JHicks said:
Lots of ifs there. Roman politics of power was a complicated game. The outcome of Caesar's succession was unpredictable as it was. Had Caesar survived the attempt on his life the whole political scene would likely have been vastly different from thereon out. Maybe Octavian would have strengthened his position, maybe Caesarion would have eventually become the heir apparent, maybe Antonius could have sidetracked them both, who knows?
yes, octavian was very loyal to julius, if he himself supports his son, or did before he dies, then octavian would honor that too i thinkJHicks said:
Well if Caesar survived the attempt on his life the first thing he'd have done would be to get rid of those who tried to kill him. That's what seems logical atleast, or would he have secured his position in some other way?
In either case I think his attention would've shifted to the interior of the republic, and that any possible campaign would've been put on hold.
In either case I think his attention would've shifted to the interior of the republic, and that any possible campaign would've been put on hold.
Caesar was remarkably lenient towards his enemies and very reluctant to punish people in retribution. It was probably a trait he picked up as a boy, when he was spared from execution by Sulla.
motiv-8 said:
True. However, fighting against you in a civil war is very different than scheming to assassinate one. If you want to heal the wounds of civil war then you should be lenient towards the people you won. If some people plan to assassinate you then that it is likely that you want to get rid them once and for all.
motiv-8 said:
He might have spared the attackers from death, even if only not to make martyrs out of them, but I'm sure he would have found the incident as a reason to strengthen his position at the proverbial throne. He might have ditched the last facades of the Republic and made himself de facto emperor, instead of Octavian doing the same.
I believe he would have had them executed and destroyed any trace of the old republic its possible he might have suffered some kind of mental breakdown and began to see enemies everywhere
Caesar would probably have gone on to defeat the Parthians (Crassus failed miserably but he didn't have the united resources of the Roman empire behind him nor the military genious of Caesar).
Then he would have reformed the republic by taking some power from the Patricians and "Good men" and giving it to the Plebians as well as representatives from the provinces (as he already did by giving senate seats to the Gauls) and maybe even found a way to make it more stable so as to avoid future civil wars. He would continue to give land to the poor of Rome as had always been his policy and thus increasing their standard of living.
Finally he would have retired like Sulla did and the republic would either have survived after his death or gotten thrown into another civil war resulting in monarchy.
Well this is my theory based upon my interpretation of his actions before his death. Others may claim that he would have become a power-hungry lunatic and we can't really tell who is right considering that all the information we have about him was either recorded by his enemies or his supporters (neutrality wasn't a profitable trait in an historian at the time).
Then he would have reformed the republic by taking some power from the Patricians and "Good men" and giving it to the Plebians as well as representatives from the provinces (as he already did by giving senate seats to the Gauls) and maybe even found a way to make it more stable so as to avoid future civil wars. He would continue to give land to the poor of Rome as had always been his policy and thus increasing their standard of living.
Finally he would have retired like Sulla did and the republic would either have survived after his death or gotten thrown into another civil war resulting in monarchy.
Well this is my theory based upon my interpretation of his actions before his death. Others may claim that he would have become a power-hungry lunatic and we can't really tell who is right considering that all the information we have about him was either recorded by his enemies or his supporters (neutrality wasn't a profitable trait in an historian at the time).
I dont believe he would have retired during his riegn he was literaly the most powerful man in the world and its not easy giving that up that kind of power
JHicks said:
Well Sulla did and considering how the two treated political opposition during their reigns as dictators I would say that Caesar was the more democratic of the two.
that_sweed said:
Sulla, though a dictator, didn't make himself a de facto king. Caesar did, and as far as I know, he was well on his way in building up a less-than-modest personality cult around himself. Something which Octavian picked up and finished after his dead.
Exel said:
As far as I know Caesar never stated that he was planning to become king or that people should worship him. He did claim to be a decendant of the gods but so did alot of the Roman aristocracy. As I stated it's impossible to determine what his plans were due to the fact that almost all historical records from the time were quite biased towards or against him. Caesar wanting to be made a king was something of an excuse his political enemies used for murdering him. And as you said it was largely Octavian who portrayed Caesar as a god in order to strengthen his own political position after Caesars death and as many of the sources about Caesars life were written during the time of Octavian, he might very well have wanted to make it seem as if Caesar shared this ambition.
Winners write the history.
And Octavinian won.
But I am 100% SURE that Caesar first wanted to go Dacia, which was a rich kingdom at that time, but then a problem in Gallia had to be solved first.
And 44 he was finally planning to go to Dacia, and then afterwards to Parthia.
And there were signs that Caesar was acting like a king.
He was claiming to be a descendant of some king of Alba Longa, and was thus wearing red boots as a sign for being like a king of Alba Longa, I think.
But so I read from some book...
And Octavinian won.
But I am 100% SURE that Caesar first wanted to go Dacia, which was a rich kingdom at that time, but then a problem in Gallia had to be solved first.
And 44 he was finally planning to go to Dacia, and then afterwards to Parthia.
And there were signs that Caesar was acting like a king.
He was claiming to be a descendant of some king of Alba Longa, and was thus wearing red boots as a sign for being like a king of Alba Longa, I think.
But so I read from some book...
Well he may have been killed the next day or the next...there was so much unrest in Rome that he may have needed to stay there..One of the reasons Augustus stayed in Rome for most of his life. As far as Cleopatra went Caesar had lusts but was never ruled by them, to him dignitas was everything to him.
I should also state for the mystique of Julius..Augustus was probably better for Rome and more of the politician. I think Emperor Julius...would not have been as good as emperor Augustus. Even though Julius was a universal genius he never did things for the good of Rome, just for the good of Caesar.
I should also state for the mystique of Julius..Augustus was probably better for Rome and more of the politician. I think Emperor Julius...would not have been as good as emperor Augustus. Even though Julius was a universal genius he never did things for the good of Rome, just for the good of Caesar.