What do you think the Roman Empire would have turned into if Caesar had survived? Would he have conquered Parthia? Would he have named himself king? Would he have conquered the Germans?

They would still rule the world!

If Caesar had survived, there wouldn't be that civil war betw Octavian and Mark Anthony, so I guess the Romans could concentrate on further conquests, rather than infighting.

Caesar too would have been the emperor, instead of Octavian for one thing.

if ceasar still lived,it would only take more time before the empire of the romans fell.so i think there wouldnt be that much if ceasar still lived

Agree with Mr.Spam aka phillipe(no offense, but 1100 posts in 3 months!!). The Romans would have probably collapsed 40-50 years later maybe.:p

I don't think it would have made any differience.
The civil war still would have happened.

I also think that it would have made no long term difference.

The Roman empire was in a state of political transition.

The development of a professional army owing loyalty to its
commander instigated by Marius, Sulla, Pompeii and continued by Caesar had undermined the republican constitution; but there was still sufficient anti-monarchy sentiment to have prevented Caesar providing for a heridatary succession.

Civil war was therefore inevitable.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
I also think that it would have made no long term difference.

The Roman empire was in a state of political transition.

The development of a professional army owing loyalty to its
commander instigated by Marius, Sulla, Pompeii and continued by Caesar had undermined the republican constitution; but there was still sufficient anti-monarchy sentiment to have prevented Caesar providing for a heridatary succession.

Civil war was therefore inevitable.

Except for the possibilty that Ceasar could have ensured that his chosen successor had the backing of the army.

I do agree that there wouldn't have been severe long term consequences. There might well be ripples we feel today, but overall what was important was the collapse of the empire, and it is unlikely that JC not being assassinated could have stopped that hundreds of years later.

A civil war had already been fought. Caesar had crushed the optimate forces under Pompey and the people of Rome idolized him. He was made dictator for life, so the Republic was effectively dead. If he was not assasinated he would probably went to war with Parthia. If he had won, the entire east would have been under Roman control. It is also likely that he would attack the germans in the north. If he defeated them badly and made them loyal to his side, the collapse of Rome might have been put off for maybe a hundred years.

The fact that Caesar was assassinated proved the war was'nt
over. It wouldn't be over until the idea of an emperor was accepted, and more importantly the ambitous who would
gamble for the throne were dead or had given up the idea.

Actually, the war was over. His assasins, whom Caesar had given pardons and actually given them positions in his government, were the last remnants of the optimate's. They did not represent the views of the average Roman citizen, they were extremists who could not admit that Rome needed a strong leader, not a bunch of squabbling senators.

Also, the second civil war between Antony and Octavian was not about the republic, it was about personal power. Each of them wanted to have sole rule of the empire, neither of them wished to restore the republic.

I don't believe Caesar would have been able to conquer "all of the east", that is, the Parthian "Empire" (more accurately called Regnum Parthorum).
Some arguments speak for that.
The first is the Roman defeat at the battle of Carrhae just 10 years before (53 BC).
Caesar could have won a battle of such category in 44/43 BC however, as he was propably a more able general than Crassus, and the Parthian royality could not have assembled such forces under an able commander anymore (Surenas, the Parthian general at Carrhae, was executed not much after the battle). It is also true that the Parthians were struggling with internal difficulties.
The second, perhaps more valid or faithful, argument against an entire conquest of the Parthian-held territories by the Romans is the later Roman expeditions into Parthia. During the days of the Emperors, the Roman army was capable of much more than in Caesars' times. The restructurizations that led to this supreriority were made only by Augustus, some 40 years later. Yet, the Romans at first could not contain Parthian aggression. There have been a number of wars against Parthia, mostly because of Armenia, and the Romans never achieved a decisive victory.
The closest thing to that was Traianus' expedition 113-117 AD, but the emperor's sudden death annilhiated all Roman achievements and set the situation to the status quo ante. In any case, I can hardly believe that Traianus would have been able to extend the Roman power much more into the east than he had already done. Mesopotamia, as it proved, was easy to conquer, even in Sasanid times, when the Persian army was of equal, if even suprerior capabilities than the Roman. Just by memorizing, I can count 5 occasions when the Romans stood before or in Ctesiphon, the largest and most important Mesopotamian city of these days (but not the definite Parthian capital, as is often falsely assumed), and each time, they had to retreat.
Furthermore, I disbelieve that Caesar could have established Mesopotamia as a long-term province of the Roman Empire. Armenians, Parthians and Elamites, perhaps also Persians would have continuously threatened this province from three fronts, and I believe they could have convinced the Arab tribes of the south to join this resistance (were the Lakhmids already around at this time?), so the province would have sooner or later fallen. An attempted expedition into the Iranian plateau would have most definately failed.

A third argument against Caesars' occupation of the east is that I hardly believe Caesar would have actually wanted that. He would have tried to conquer Mesopotamia for many reasons, but romanizing the territories beyond would have been utterly impossible, or perhaps even out of interest. The tribes of Iran were always hostile to Rome and would have definately revolted at the first glimpse of a chance.
Romanizing these territories would have been very difficult mainly because they already posessed a highly advanced civilization and were too proud of themselves to accept the Roman way of life, in particular the Persians. Simply argumented, the Persians were even too proud to admit they ever fell under foreign rule. According to a Persian tradition, Alexander the Great was a half-brother of Darius III. (his father was Macedonian, but his mother was Persian, and to the Persians, it has always been the mother who counted) who challenged Darius for the throne.

It is
also likely that he would attack the germans in the north. If he defeated them badly and made them loyal to his
side, the collapse of Rome might have been put off for maybe a hundred years.

I disbelieve Caesar would have been more able to do this than Germanicus and Tiberius were just thirty years later, especially regarding the fact that Germanicus was both an excellent general, and as popular as Caesar.

Another succesful attack on the Persians was by Julian in the early 360's A.D. I believe that Caesar could have defeated the Parthians, especially because of the political turmoil they were in at the time. If he attacked as a revolt was taking place, the Parthians would have been destroyed.

Also, your statement that he would not have attacked the east is unfounded. Many accounts say that Caesar was planning a Parthian expedition before he died. The romanization of Parthia would have been very difficult, however, Caesar had already accomplished something just as difficult in Gaul, where the tribes were hardly friendly towards Rome.

An attack on the Germans would have been more difficult. However, his veteran troops, who were probably the best Rome ever had, could very well have defeated the germans. Also, I think Caesar was in a class by himself. Germanicus was an excellent general, but Caesar was the best Rome ever produced. If Caesar could have made allies in Germany, as he did in Gaul, his victory would be probable.

Another succesful attack on the Persians was by Julian in the early 360's A.D. I believe that Caesar could have
defeated the Parthians, especially because of the political turmoil they were in at the time. If he attacked as a
revolt was taking place, the Parthians would have been destroyed.

Sorry to dissapoint you there, but Iulianus was utterly defeated in a monumental battle, and died shortly afterwards.
Besides, Persians and Parthians were not the same, most definately not in their warfare strategies.
Claiming "The Parthians would have been destroyed" is too naive for my ears. I think there are a number of possibilities of what could have occured when Caesar would have defeated the Parthian King. One is that rivalring fractions of the Parthian aristocracy would have arisen, allying with or against Caesar. Another is that local vassal dynasties, such as the Frataraka in Persia could have risen to much power and become considerable enemies of Rome.

Also, your statement that he would not have attacked the east is unfounded. Many accounts say that Caesar was
planning a Parthian expedition before he died. The romanization of Parthia would have been very difficult, however,
Caesar had already accomplished something just as difficult in Gaul, where the tribes were hardly friendly towards
Rome.

I am well aware of these plans, and I was reffering to this statement of yours:

If he had won, the entire east would have been under Roman control.

As I said, a campaign on Mesopotamia is likely, but not much more.
To give you a picture, the cultural topography of Iran and "the east" during the time of the Arsacid dynasty (that is, the Parthians) was everything but a unity. The Parthians themselves ruled only fractions of what the Romans reffered to as the "Parthian empire". Parthian power was ultimate in Mesopotamia, central Media (around today's Hamadan and Tehran), and Parthia itself (mostly today's Turkmenistan and northeastern Iran). The rest was ruled by Parthian vassals who had much individual and independent power. Some parts of today's southern Iraq and southwestern Iran was controlled by the Elamites, all the rest of southern Iran was controlled by the Persians. Some parts of southern Mesopotamia (the Gulf Area) was ruled by a number of independent rulers, the north was independent (=vassal) Atropatene (around today's Tabriz) and Armenia, whose status varied consistently.
The ultimate power of the Parthians in these areas was minimal. Local kings, princes and rulers governed with the consent of the Arsacid King, but had a lot of individual liberties. This system finally led to the Parthian downfall, as the descendants of the Persian Frataraka (or king) Sasan, Pabag and Ardasher, were able to extend their influence, rise an army and defeat the Parthian king in battle, thus ending about 500 years of foreign (yes, foreign, the Parthians were originally horse nomads from the Central Asian steppes) rule (although, as stated, it was mostly a shadow rule) over their homelands, the Iranian plateau.

An attack on the Germans would have been more difficult. However, his veteran troops, who were probably the
best Rome ever had, could very well have defeated the germans. Also, I think Caesar was in a class by himself.
Germanicus was an excellent general, but Caesar was the best Rome ever produced. If Caesar could have made
allies in Germany, as he did in Gaul, his victory would be probable.

Selling such ally policy to the Roman people would have proved to be impossible for Caesar. The Germanics were barbarians to the Romans, they were commonly associated with terror, ravage and devastation. Remember, they had already almost brought about the downfall of Rome, at least in its own eyes, and that was still burned into the collective memory of the Roman people. Had Caesar come to name only one Germanic tribe that was his ally, it would have been his political doom, especially after the bloodshed against the Germanics in the Gaulic campaign.

I have to agree with Stephan on the subject of the East.
He quite well could have defeated the Parthians, but I don't
think he could have held a very large area permanently. And
if you throw in a campaign against the Germans, I think two
problems arise.

First, domestically. If Caesar spends all of his time fighting
Parthians and Germans, he is not in Rome taking care of
domestic issues, which could in turn to lead to things like
coups and/or civil wars.

Second, militarily. IMO, given the logistics of the time,
it would not have been possible to conquer *and hold*
two new large territories which are widely separated.
The butter, as it were, would be spread too thin, and
at least one would slip back out of Rome's control.

My $.02

Sorry about Julian, my memory slipped me:( .

I don't think Caesar would have been "doomed" if he had made allies with a german tribe. In his gallic campaigns he used germanic cavalry frequently, and said they were far superior to the gallic cavalry. He made allies with gallic tribes, yet they were also considered barbarians by the Roman people. If he couldn't ally with them, he could probably have at least made peace with them.

Sorry about "the entire east", I meant the parthian controled territory. I knew that the area was not unified, but I think that if Caesar could have destroyed the dominant power in the region (Parthia) he could have conquered the other smaller nations.

I actually said "If a revolt was taking place, the parthians would have been destroyed," not just they would be destroyed. I mentioned the political problems in Parthia. However, you are right in saying that other factions could have risen to combat Rome.

Had Caesar survived he would have invaded Parthia and tried his best to become king. He might well have taken a swipe at Brittania as well, after being defeated there twice already. He would have undoubtedly tried to become king, there is no question that this is what he wanted. He wouldn't have tried that silly bit on the Lupercalia had it not been his intention. However, I find it inevitable that some Republican somewhere would have eventually done him in so as he could not become king. Civil War might still have occurred had Caesar survived, and it might have occurred at the exact time that it did historically as well. Caesar was nearing his 60s, when he died. He was a senior by Roman standards. He might have seized the crown, but he wouldn't have lasted longer. Then Octavian would have become king. Marcus Antonius might have started a revolt, or something to that effect. However, one can never tell about these things.

I don't think Caesar would have been "doomed" if he had made allies with a german tribe. In his gallic campaigns he
used germanic cavalry frequently, and said they were far superior to the gallic cavalry. He made allies with gallic
tribes, yet they were also considered barbarians by the Roman people. If he couldn't ally with them, he could
probably have at least made peace with them.

Sure, but that would have been a very unstable peace. Greater movements were going on in Germania at that time, and for a while, it even appeared that a large Germanic empire would have been established. This can be compared to the situation during the time of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and their successors. Commodus made peace with the Germanics, but the situation within Germania proved to be so unstable that this peace collapsed a few decades later. This is what would have happened to a Caesarian peace as well.

Had Caesar survived he would have invaded Parthia and tried his best to become king. He might well have taken a
swipe at Brittania as well, after being defeated there twice already. He would have undoubtedly tried to become
king, there is no question that this is what he wanted. He wouldn't have tried that silly bit on the Lupercalia had it
not been his intention. However, I find it inevitable that some Republican somewhere would have eventually done
him in so as he could not become king. Civil War might still have occurred had Caesar survived, and it might have
occurred at the exact time that it did historically as well. Caesar was nearing his 60s, when he died. He was a
senior by Roman standards. He might have seized the crown, but he wouldn't have lasted longer. Then Octavian
would have become king. Marcus Antonius might have started a revolt, or something to that effect. However, one
can never tell about these things.

Caesar wouldn't have named himself king. He was too good a Roman to do this; one of the other things burned into the collective mind of the Romans (yes, there were quite a lot of those) was, that Rome had once been ruled by (Etruscan) kings, who were remembered for their cruelty.
A member of Caesars governing staff attempted to proclaim Caesar "King of Rome", but Caesar, well-knowing this would have been agains the will of the people, even if it had only been a title, rejected this.
He was propably more than satisfied with the title of the lifelong dictator, which assured him all executive power, while appearing like a republican honour.

I agree with Stefan that Caesar would have never made himself king. He knew that if he took the title of King, he would destroy himself politically.

Serutan: Caesar had already solved many of the domestic issues that led to the civil war. He solved the debt problem and moved many poor citizens from Rome to colonies in his brilliant Agrarian reforms. These reforms solved the enormous payments the government made every year to buy food for the poor citizens of Rome. It is unlikely that a coup would have been attempted by his opponents because he would have left many loyal supporters of his in charge of Rome while he was absent.

I think Caesar could have romanized the Parthian territories if he was able to establish colonies of Roman citizens (former soldiers perhaps?) in key strategic positions in the territory, as the Romans did so effectively in the unification of Italy.

Serutan: Caesar had already solved many of the domestic issues that led to the civil war. He solved the debt
problem and moved many poor citizens from Rome to colonies in his brilliant Agrarian reforms. These reforms solved
the enormous payments the government made every year to buy food for the poor citizens of Rome. It is unlikely
that a coup would have been attempted by his opponents because he would have left many loyal supporters of his
in charge of Rome while he was absent.

Then why exactly did the empire return to civil war so short after his death?
Apart from that, just because Caesar wouldn't have been murdered wouldn't mean he wouldn't still have any politcal enemies.

I think Caesar could have romanized the Parthian territories if he was able to establish colonies of Roman citizens
(former soldiers perhaps?) in key strategic positions in the territory, as the Romans did so effectively in the
unification of Italy.

Hard to believe, IMHO. Italy was romanized because it had no other choice. The Celtic territories were romanized because the Romans disregarded the Celtic culture, and, because there wasn't any big urban culture in Gaul, Britania and Hispania. Northern Africa was romanized because, to be honest, the carthaginian culture was too much based on foreign influence to survive the Romans.
Illyria, Dacia, Thrace and the Roman parts of Germania were romanized for a similar reason as the Celtic territories.
Anatolia, and parts of Syria also underwent a certain romanization, but all territories held by Greeks withstood most attempts at romanization. Yes, Roman buildings were errected in most Greek cities, but often, these complied with the Greek civilization (Theatres, etc.). To come to the point, I think this would have been the same deal with Parthia/Mesopotamia (I still believe Caesar would've been capable of conquering Mesopotamia only, especially because Parthia was in eastern Iran). Mesopotamia had already been subject to intense hellenization, i.e. was subdued to the Greek culture. The Romans wouldn't have found much to romanize here (except maybe for Aquaeducts and Baths :rolleyes: ). Apart from that, there was also a strong local Mesopotamian and Iranian culture, much like in Egypt, which also survived romanization in a degree, but most if it was hellenized anyway.
To conclude, I don't think the Romans would have been able to romanize Mesopotamia or anything east of it.

The empire returned to war shortly after Caesar's death because of the power struggle between Octavian and Mark Antony for control of the empire, not over the republic or any domestic issues in Rome. On Caesar's death, some of his murderers did escape and start a minor war, but this was just an attempt by the few remaining optimates to bring back the power of the senate, and it had no support in Rome. These wars were not fought over domestic issues, they were fought over a power struggle between Octavian and Antony and one final attempt by the optimate old gaurd to restore the republic.

I am afraid I may have confused you when I said romanization. What I meant was that the Romans would have been able to control the parthian territories they may have conquered by the same system they used in the unification of Italy, which was to establish colonies of soldiers or settlers at strategic roads, trade routes, or at important fortresses, thereby preventing any rebellion from being able to spread or overthrow the Romans.

if Caesar would of survived world history would be different. Caesar was set to marry Cleopatra and their son Caesarium (mini-caesar) would have ruled both empires as this was announced shortly after Caesar proclaimed himself Emporer

If ceaser was allive, so rome would conquer all europe and reach India, in his life, but after he will die, no one good will be instead of him (no one good was...) and becose he will kill everyone good, that were real emprors (he will be afraid from them) so thos bad leaders will lost all the empier, even faster, much faster, and the jews will succed in retaking their lands, as well as cartghe will come back (I think...)