Julius Ceaser is remebered as one of the greatest generals in history who became the first emporer of Rome his death led to years of civil war
But what if he had survived?
But what if he had survived?
-
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.
When Caesar was assassinated he was planning to start a war against Parthia to avenge the defeat of his friend Crassus at Carrhae. However, if he would have escaped the blades of assassins then he would have encountered the Parthian armies. Parthians knew how to crush Roman legions in the open.
Artavasdes II of Armenia
Also, the king of Armenia, Artavasdes II was basically a vassal of Parthia. How would have Armenia reacted? Would she have been loyal to her Parthian overlords or would she have defected to Roman side. However, the heir of Parthian empire, Pacorus was the brother-in-law of Artavasdes II and it would have been likely that Caesar would have encountered the combined Parthian and Armenian forces.
What would happened then? It is likely that either they would have defeated Caesar or Caesar would have conquered some border provinces or even have been able to cut the Armenian vassalisation with Parthia but I don´t think he would have been able to do much more than that.
Artavasdes II of Armenia
Also, the king of Armenia, Artavasdes II was basically a vassal of Parthia. How would have Armenia reacted? Would she have been loyal to her Parthian overlords or would she have defected to Roman side. However, the heir of Parthian empire, Pacorus was the brother-in-law of Artavasdes II and it would have been likely that Caesar would have encountered the combined Parthian and Armenian forces.
What would happened then? It is likely that either they would have defeated Caesar or Caesar would have conquered some border provinces or even have been able to cut the Armenian vassalisation with Parthia but I don´t think he would have been able to do much more than that.
Intresting idea
if Julius Ceaser had lived and remained the emporer for the rest of his life who do you think would have succeded him as the emporer after he died
if Julius Ceaser had lived and remained the emporer for the rest of his life who do you think would have succeded him as the emporer after he died
JHicks said:
Historically, in his testament, Caesar named 18 years old young man as his heir. This young man was Octavian and he is better known as Augustus. I think it is pretty likely that Octavian would have been his successor in that case also if Caesar would have died about 20 years later.
In that situation, Octavian would have been about 38 years old and probably a veteran of numerous military campaigns. Octavian´s close friend was Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who was a very good general and I assume that he would have been Octavian´s leading general.
youre probably right
do you think Octavian would have tried to conquer germania like he did after Julius was assasinated or would he have tried to conquer a different territory like egypt
do you think Octavian would have tried to conquer germania like he did after Julius was assasinated or would he have tried to conquer a different territory like egypt
Rome already had a tight grip on Egypt, and no doubt Caesar would have tightened that grip, there would have been no need for a campaign there unless there was a revolt.JHicks said:
Don't forget that if Caesar survives his natural born son does too. Whether the Romans would accept a half Egyptian as ruler of Rome is another matter of course. Definitely some potential for another civil war there.Finnish Dragon said:
Registered said:
Historically, Romans were very suspicious towards the affairs between Caesar or Mark Antony and Cleopatra. I don´t think Romans would have accepted a foreign monarch as their ruler. Romans banished their last king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus and they were very sceptical towards monarchy and especially foreign monarchs. Rome did have republican tradition since 510 BC and that tradition won´t die out easily.
that might lead to a civil war, but i somehow think the 'given' prestige and fame of the father would have aided the little Caesar to get supporters among the common folk and many soldiers, just as a huge possibility of having friends between the fathers friends
During the years of civil war that followed Julius Ceasers death Mark Anthony married Cleopatra
Do you think if Julius Ceaser had lived he would married Cleopatra and made her the empress of Rome
Do you think if Julius Ceaser had lived he would married Cleopatra and made her the empress of Rome
I thought that Caesar was planning to get Dacia, as he wanted to go there earlier, but had to go to Gallia.
Well, I am sure he would have had an heir, like the child he and Cleopatra had, but who later got assaisnated bu Octavian.
Then there would have been like 15 years more of Caesarian dictatorship, and then the Roman Empire would have been back to normal.
No Imperial Rome, I guess.
Afterwards, Germania and Sarmatia would have been conquered, as well the whole Britannica including Ireland.
Then thee could have been a borderline along Volga, and the huns would be ruling east from it.
Parthia and Rome would be fighting always, neither side winning, as Parthians sometimes manage to get to Bosporus, sometimes the Romans can get to Persepolis.
But Caesars son inherits Cleopatra, and with Roman support becomes the King of Egypt, while being a vassal of Rome and creating a Caesar-Ptolemy dynasty in Egypt.
The romans never kill Jesus, as it is a Egyptian provinces, and thus the new branch of judaism gets few supporters.
The end.
Well, I am sure he would have had an heir, like the child he and Cleopatra had, but who later got assaisnated bu Octavian.
Then there would have been like 15 years more of Caesarian dictatorship, and then the Roman Empire would have been back to normal.
No Imperial Rome, I guess.
Afterwards, Germania and Sarmatia would have been conquered, as well the whole Britannica including Ireland.
Then thee could have been a borderline along Volga, and the huns would be ruling east from it.
Parthia and Rome would be fighting always, neither side winning, as Parthians sometimes manage to get to Bosporus, sometimes the Romans can get to Persepolis.
But Caesars son inherits Cleopatra, and with Roman support becomes the King of Egypt, while being a vassal of Rome and creating a Caesar-Ptolemy dynasty in Egypt.
The romans never kill Jesus, as it is a Egyptian provinces, and thus the new branch of judaism gets few supporters.
The end.
At the time of Jesus's birth Judea hadn't been an Egyptian possession for some time. It was an independent kingdom.
motiv-8 said:
Well, Rome could have made it a part of Egypt.
And when the Roman Republic decided to get more land, not many nations remain independent. So Caesar would have given it to his son as a birthday present?
If Caesar had not been murdered he would have rqapidly declined in both health and mental capability, this would have been a sign for his enemies to move on him because of his illness, thus the julio-claudians would have been broken as a political body and the republic would have persisted in a tottering dotage for a while until challenged and overthrown by another man. Perhaps even by Marc Antony, or by the sons of Pompey. This is what I think anyway.
Enewald said:Well, Rome could have made it a part of Egypt.
And when the Roman Republic decided to get more land, not many nations remain independent. So Caesar would have given it to his son as a birthday present?
Acts of such overt imperialism were very rare throughout the Republican era.
motiv-8 said:
Well, the times were changing and the republic was dying. And there comes the word 'imperialism-impera'. Personal relationships, pride and glory. And fame.
Also power.
Maybe give Judea to the egyptians just to show how much more powerful the romans are, and how much power one can wield.
There's no reason to think that the Senate, after observing the actions of Caesar in Gaul and the debacle of Crassus at Carrhae, would be willing to waste legionaries on what would almost certainly become another full-scale revolt in Judea, if the kingdom was handed back to Cleopatra / Ptolemy XV.
motiv-8 said:
Well, what power did senate have?
It had some power, but Caesar had more, and it had to do as Caesar wanted.
Or maybe just create a puppet state in Judea?
Caesar would have kept building up his cult of personality and become ever more drunken with power. Very likely he would have become the tyrant the assassins thought he was. History would likely not remember in such a positive light as it does now.
It views him in a positive light?
I always saw it more of a neutral, with a slight disapproving nature about it, but very faint.
I always saw it more of a neutral, with a slight disapproving nature about it, but very faint.