If Julius Caesar Hadn't Died

[Reeve]

Could he have succeeded in his planned invasion of Parthia? He planned to invade and subjugate Parthia before turning north up through the Caucasus, pacifying the steppe tribes, heading around the Black Sea, then west up the Danube to conquer Germania. It was audacious to say the least, but Caesar had a history of succeeding at insanely audacious things, almost always fighting while outnumbered and winning. If it hadn't been for the massive civil wars in Rome after Caesar's death, Rome's military might would have been damn near unshakable at the time. The Parthians had superior horse archers, but I find it believable Caesar could have found a solution for those. What do you all think?

Here's a map for those unfamiliar with the area:

[belfpala]

Alexander got further east, so... why not.

[Bakis]

Dunno, Rome had alot of huge issues.
The ammount of slaves was becoming a serious security risk, the corruption, the enormous ammount of upkeep needed for the provinces and the army, fleet, inflation and the bigger an empire grows the more it needs to be devided to become managable and that is just a recipe for internal conflicts and disaster.

Time will tell! oh it wont

- - - Updated - - -

Alexander got further east, so... why not.

Yea but it also crumbled as soon as he died

Oh, this post is under the asumption that he did conqurer them, just doubt it would have lead to anything.

[Deleted]

Im not really sure it would have made that much difference really, Rome still kept on trying to conquer these regions after he died. Augustus the emperor after him took alot of land for Rome, so really i doubt it would have made much difference.

[Shiny212]

I don't think these plans were more than quiet musings for Caesar, he had his hands full plotting against Pompey and making himself Emperor, and once that was "done" and he'd beaten Pompey, Cato, Scipio and the that bunch, well you know; Et tu, Brute?

[Laize]

It always seemed to me that Brutus et al were well within their rights to swiss-cheesify Caesar. Maybe they all wanted him dead for different reasons, but the facts were the dude was a dick.

[Reeve]

I don't think these plans were more than quiet musings for Caesar, he had his hands full plotting against Pompey and making himself Emperor, and once that was "done" and he'd beaten Pompey, Cato, Scipio and the that bunch, well you know; Et tu, Brute?

At the point that he was making the plans, he'd already defeated Pompey, and Cato, and the rest of the Senate and was the undisputed ruler of Rome. His plans were very far along, and the Senate meeting where he was assassinated was meant to be one last meeting before he shipped out to go a-conquerin' in the East.

[InDecisive]

It always seemed to me that Brutus et al were well within their rights to swiss-cheesify Caesar. Maybe they all wanted him dead for different reasons, but the facts were the dude was a dick.

Nah, Caesar was pretty cool as Roman dictators go.

[Reeve]

It always seemed to me that Brutus et al were well within their rights to swiss-cheesify Caesar. Maybe they all wanted him dead for different reasons, but the facts were the dude was a dick.

Oh yeah, he was for sure. He killed thousands of his countrymen in his own quest for power. I'd be the first to sign up to get rid of such a man in the US today. That said, once he had said power, he did generally use it for positive reform. He wasn't like Marc Antony, where power was simply something he wanted for the sake of personal luxury and excess. He was more like a bloodier Vladimir Putin, who wants absolute power in order to make his country in the image of his vision for the future. And the fact is that the Roman Empire was in need of serious reform. It was already falling apart at the seams when Julius Caesar arrived on the stage.

He was also less bloody than the Romans of his type that came before him. Marius and Sulla were much much bloodier. Julius Caesar was a self-aggrandizer and a tyrant, but as things go for that period of history, he was a relatively benevolent one.

The problem with Brutus and the other "liberators" is that they had no plan for what was to come next after Caesar's death. They also incredibly misjudged the people's love for Caesar and how they would react to his murder.

All of that is irrelevant, though, to the question of whether or not he could have been successful in conquering virtually all of Europe and the Middle East.

[Kalis]

Rome's reliance on infantry, and 'mistrust' of cavalry, would probably have done for him in open battle as they did for many Roman armies. He was however extremely resourceful, and if he could have found reliable allies that also possessed a number of horse archers, then he could, and probably would, have been successful.

He didn't have the tactical genius of an Alexander or Hannibal, who could create flexible tactics on the fly to overcome any limitations within their forces, so I would say no if he goes for a quick victory, but yes if he plays a long game based on political maneuvering.

[Reeve]

Rome's reliance on infantry, and 'mistrust' of cavalry, would probably have done for him in open battle as they did for many Roman armies. He was however extremely resourceful, and if he could have found reliable allies that also possessed a number of horse archers, then he could, and probably would, have been successful.

He didn't have the tactical genius of an Alexander or Hannibal, who could create flexible tactics on the fly to overcome any limitations within their forces, so I would say no if he goes for a quick victory, but yes if he plays a long game based on political maneuvering.

Well I'm not sure any general of the ancient world was as good as Hannibal. A lot of Caesar's success was luck, but a large amount of it was also his own strategic and tactical brilliance. He was no Hannibal, but he was still a fantastic general. Almost every battle of his career, he was outnumbered and in some cases outclassed and still carried the day. He showed an ability to adapt and create new tactics on the fly, and unlike Hannibal, he was an expert politician as well, knowing how to get all the right support at the right times from the critical people. He was shrewd.

I think Caesar could have taken Alexander though. The Roman Maniple is just so much more flexible and generally superior to the Phalanx. Caesar was working with much better tools than Alexander.

[Crispin]

Several key factors caused Rome to fail in the end, f.ex their forces ending up beeing mostly "foreigners" from conquered areas, they obviously didnt show the same enthusiasm fighting for their conquerers as the Romans themselves did, and I honestly don't think they would have been able to conquer Germania at any time in Rome's excistince, the amount of tribes in Germania at the time was overwhelming, it wasnt "just" todays Germania at the time, but a large part north and east of todays Germany.

[Prokne]

Could he have succeeded in his planned invasion of Parthia?

Crassus already tried to invade the Parthian Empire and lost. The same thing happened to about every other attempt except for Trajan who took over the area that is now Iraq. 1st century BC/CE Romans didnt have any counter to mounted archers which is the reason why they were not successful, it wouldnt matter if Caesar had tried because he didnt have the tools.

However, if the Senate hadnt killed him, he would probably have been the first emperor of Rome and Octavian would have been second, ect. In this case they would have avoided the civil wars between Octavian, Antony, and Brutus/Cassius. We probably wouldnt have the interesting stories about Cleopatra and Antony. Another scenario is that Caesar reforms the republic as dictator and steps down which might have delayed or prevented anyone becoming emperor.

[Yvaelle]

OMG This thread looks like a lot of fun

I'm in the middle of class but I want to jump into this when I get home!

[Kalis]

Well I'm not sure any general of the ancient world was as good as Hannibal. A lot of Caesar's success was luck, but a large amount of it was also his own strategic and tactical brilliance. He was no Hannibal, but he was still a fantastic general. Almost every battle of his career, he was outnumbered and in some cases outclassed and still carried the day. He showed an ability to adapt and create new tactics on the fly, and unlike Hannibal, he was an expert politician as well, knowing how to get all the right support at the right times from the critical people. He was shrewd.

I think Caesar could have taken Alexander though. The Roman Maniple is just so much more flexible and generally superior to the Phalanx. Caesar was working with much better tools than Alexander.

Alexander fought successfully against other infantry (light and heavy), cavalry, horse archers using hit and run tactics, elephants, chariots, guerilla tactics, entrenched positions, superior numbers, river crossings both day and night, etc. He was one of the most ingenious and flexible military commanders in the ancient world.

Hannibal versus Alexander would have been an amazing battle, and I would fancy Hannibal to win it as long as he got to choose where the battle was fought, but I doubt Caesar would have stood a chance against either of them on the battlefield.

The Roman armies only fought the phalanx armies of the successor states, and by that time they had become too heavily armoured and slow. In Alexander's time they were still relatively mobile. With the Romans lack of cavalry, Caesar would have had to form a square, or two lines facing opposite ways, or leave their rear/flanks open - by doing that, it would have limited their mobility and enabled Alexander's peltasts and archers to run riot from range.

Caesar versus Alexander, with one of the armies entrenched, would have been more equal - siege warfare was something that Hannibal never really proved himself at, unlike the other two.

Alexander demonstrated his ability in all forms of warfare, whereas the other two didn't, not to say they couldn't, but it is all hypothetical with them.

[Deleted]

Rome's reliance on infantry, and 'mistrust' of cavalry, would probably have done for him in open battle as they did for many Roman armies. He was however extremely resourceful, and if he could have found reliable allies that also possessed a number of horse archers, then he could, and probably would, have been successful.

He didn't have the tactical genius of an Alexander or Hannibal, who could create flexible tactics on the fly to overcome any limitations within their forces, so I would say no if he goes for a quick victory, but yes if he plays a long game based on political maneuvering.

Sorry but wasn't Caesar that while sieging vercingetorix got a report of an incoming army, and started building up fortifications on the spot?
He was sieged and sieging at the same time. Pretty quick minded and resourceful if you ask me.

[Kalis]

Sorry but wasn't Caesar that while sieging vercingetorix got a report of an incoming army, and started building up fortifications on the spot?
He was sieged and sieging at the same time. Pretty quick minded and resourceful if you ask me.

Not really of much help on the battlefield though.

[Tradewind]

I can't even focus on the question cuz my head hurts. But all I know is that Rome was cancelled far too soon and I miss that show.

[Vellus]

The romans were even more powerful than on your map. go find one from like 17AD, they have a lot of parts of

edit: Wow I'm retarded, didnt even read just saw the map and it looked small for roman territory (its not). Ignore me!

[Deleted]

Sorry but wasn't Caesar that while sieging vercingetorix got a report of an incoming army, and started building up fortifications on the spot? He was sieged and sieging at the same time. Pretty quick minded and resourceful if you ask me.

Yes it was don on a grand scale, but it is standard to erect fortifications to prevent break-out and break-in during a long siege.