This essay explores the reasons behind Brutus’ involvement in the conspiracy against Julius Caesar, focusing on his sense of honor, concern for the Roman Republic, and the persuasive influence of other conspirators. Brutus’ primary motive for joining the conspiracy lies in his genuine concern for Rome and his desire to protect its integrity. Cassius skillfully manipulates Brutus’ fear and exploits his conscience to persuade him to join the conspiracy against Caesar.
Brutus’ character is complex due to his unconscious hypocrisy and conflicting attitudes towards the conspiracy. In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Brutus persuades other senators to join the conspiracy by highlighting the threat posed by Caesar. The conspirators, led by Gaius Cassius Longinus, were aware of Brutus’ republican ideals and his wavering loyalty to Caesar. It was a strategic decision for Cassius to invite Brutus to join the conspiracy against Caesar, as he was a respected and influential figure.
Despite many believing that Brutus was a victim of Cassius’ evil intentions, there is evidence to support that he was not a victim but a coward and a fool. Instead of joining the conspiracy right away when offered the chance by Cassius, Brutus refuses, believing that keeping Caesar’s reforms intact would keep the support of the Roman people.
Brutus’s involvement will help the conspiracy, not hurt it, as he is popular with the people and has great concern for the common good. However, Brutus’s fatal flaw is his trustworthy nature, as he joins the conspiracy not because he “loved Caesar less but loved Rome more”.
In conclusion, this essay highlights the multifaceted reasons behind Brutus’ involvement in the conspiracy against Julius Caesar, highlighting the importance of honor, concern for the Roman Republic, and the persuasive influence of other conspirators.
📹 Putin flirts, Putin sigma rule, Putin body language #sigma #confidence #bodylanguage #putin #shorts
Putin flirts, Putin sigma rule, Putin body language #sigma #confidence #bodylanguage #putin #shorts power. authority.
What are Brutus key mistakes?
Brutus, a tragic hero, makes several mistakes that lead to his downfall. One of his worst mistakes is not making the conspirators swear an oath, as Cassius suggested. Brutus believes that killing Antony alongside Caesar will make the conspirators appear as butchers, which backfires as Antony later takes revenge against the conspirators.
Brutus’ greatest flaw is his excessive honor and naivety when dealing with people. He underestimates Antony and thinks he can only be dangerous after Caesar’s death. His excessive honor also damages him when he decides only Caesar should die, even if they seem to threaten his cause.
Brutus’s naivety and easy reliance on Cassius’s influence are also significant flaws. Cassius manipulates Brutus to agree with him, and he believes that his friend Caesar had a negative impact on Rome. Despite being his friend, Brutus always showed loyalty towards Rome.
Brutus’ tragic flaw is his inability to figure out others’ intentions and trusts Cassius. If Brutus had not listened to Cassius, he might not have joined the conspiracy and had a tragic end.
What does Brutus tell the conspirators to do?
Brutus, a Roman emperor, instructs the conspirators to act as friends to Caesar by shortening his fear of death. He urges them to bathe their hands in Caesar’s blood and walk to the Roman Forum with their bloodied swords to proclaim peace, freedom, and liberty. Cassius agrees, declaring the scene to be repeated as a commemorative ritual. Antony’s servant informs him that he loves Caesar but will now vow to serve Brutus if Brutus promises not to punish him for his past allegiance. Brutus assures him that he will not harm Antony and sends the servant to bid him come. Brutus remarks that Antony will surely be an ally now, but Cassius still has misgivings.
Antony enters and sees Caesar’s corpse, marveling at how a man so great in deed and reputation could end as such a small and pathetic body. He tells the conspirators to kill Caesar as soon as possible, as there would be no better place to die than beside Caesar. Brutus tells Antony to wait until the conspirators calm the multitude and then explain fully why they killed Caesar. Antony does not doubt their wisdom and shakes each of their bloody hands, staining Trebonius’s hands.
What was Brutus biggest flaw?
In Julius Caesar, Brutus’s tragic flaw is his idealism, which impairs his objectivity and contributes to his downfall. This allows him to be manipulated by Cassius and to become involved in the conspiracy for the benefit of Rome.
What is Brutus’s greatest flaw?
Julius Caesar’s tragic flaw, Brutus’s idealism, impairs his objectivity and contributes to his downfall. This enables Cassius to manipulate Brutus and draw him into the conspiracy, as Brutus desires what is right for Rome.
What was wrong with Brutus?
Brutus, a prominent Roman philosopher, was portrayed as philosophically consistent and motivated by principle in his literary output, particularly his pamphlets against Pompey’s dictatorship and support for Milo. Cicero, in his De Officiis, argued that the conspirators, including Brutus, were morally responsible for Caesar’s death. However, he was often charged with ingratitude and criminal murder. During the Augustan age, historians wrote about Brutus and his compatriots respectfully, with even Augustus himself alleged to tolerate positive views.
The divisive views of Brutus in the early Principate remained unchanged by the reign of Tiberius, with historian Cremutius Cordus charged with treason for writing a history too friendly to Brutus and Cassius. Valerius Maximus, writing with the support of the imperial regime, believed Brutus’ memory suffered from “irreversible curses”. During this time, admiration of Brutus and Cassius was interpreted as a cry of protest against the imperial system.
By the time Plutarch wrote his Life of Brutus, the oral and written tradition had been worked over to create a streamlined, largely positive narrative of Brutus’ motives. Some high imperial writers, such as Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, admired Brutus’ rhetorical skills, with Tacitus stating that Brutus laid bare the convictions of his heart honestly and ingeniously, with neither ill-will nor spite.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Brutus?
The tragic hero, who is convinced that Caesar will become a tyrant, participates in the conspiracy to assassinate him, despite the fact that his loyalty represents the fundamental flaw at the core of his character. He is unable to discern his misjudgment and instead acts to safeguard Rome.
How is conspiracy personified by Brutus?
Brutus employs the use of apostrophe and personification to portray the conspiracy as a personified entity, suggesting that it possesses a “brow” reminiscent of a human countenance.
How does Brutus feel about the conspiracy plot?
Despite his decision to join the conspirators, Brutus acknowledges that their plan is flawed. He articulates his disapproval of the plan, stating, “Is it a misstep to reveal your vulnerable side at night, when malevolence is most prevalent?”
What are the main arguments of Brutus?
Brutus argues that a free republic cannot exist in the United States due to its large territory and population. He uses examples of Greek and Roman republics that became tyrannical as their territories grew. A true free republic comes from the people, not representatives of the people. With the population and geographical size of the United States, citizens may have little acquaintance with those chosen to represent them, and the federal assembly will consist of men they have never heard of.
Brutus questions the validity of the Three-fifths Compromise and questions the corruption of the branch. He supports the rotation of senators and the six-year term for senators, but opposes Congress taking part in appointing officers and impeachment, as it gives them both executive and judicial powers.
Brutus also believes that the power given to the judiciary will extend legislative authority, increase the jurisdiction of the courts, and diminish both legislative and judiciary powers of the states. He believes that the Supreme Court’s ability to declare the powers of the legislature will lead to revision of legislative power, as they can interpret the Constitution according to its “spirit and reason” and will not be bound by its words alone.
Brutus also thinks there should be more checks on the branch, and judges should not only be removed on the basis of crime, but also be held accountable with a high hand and an outstretched arm.
How did the conspirators convince Brutus?
Brutus, a Roman citizen who is devoted to Caesar and believes in the principle of self-determination, finds himself in a dilemma. He is torn between two options: joining the conspirators and his friend Caesar, who has been convinced by Cassius’ letters that the citizens do not desire an emperor rule, or remaining loyal to Caesar and maintaining the existing political order.
What are the pros and cons of Brutus?
Brutus, a character in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, is a hero who is known for his loyalty to Rome and his actions to make it better. Despite his weaknesses, such as a lack of humor, Brutus’s strengths, such as his love for Rome and his decision to kill Caesar, make him the noblest. Brutus was Caesar’s best friend and loyal to him, even when Caesar became too powerful. However, he had a tragic flaw in believing Cassius to backstab Caesar, leading to his eventual death. Despite this, Brutus is known for his honor and trustworthiness, demonstrating that he won’t succumb to unfair men. The play ends with the question of whether Brutus is truly noble.
📹 What if Julius Caesar Was Not Assassinated? – Alternate History FULL DOCUMENTARY
When Caesar died on the Ides of March, he closed the door on many ambitious plans which would have significantly altered the …
I like to think of a Timeline that stems from either Casaer listening to his wife’s dreams, or of having read and believed the message sent to him by a servant at the last moment. 2 scenarios: First, he just doesn’t go, and history diverges along that path, or more sinisterly, Caesar is alerted to the plot and eliminates the conspirators with the blessings of the populous. That would certainly secure his power base at home for whatever ambitions he may have held for the future, and he would have taken full advantage against his enemies if fate had given Caesar the opportunity to do so.
The accuracy and grasp you all have on the mindset, tactics and disposition of Caesar to war is mind boggling. From everything I’ve read and listened too, everything you guys said about how he would and could react is CLEARLY based on empirical evidence and historical accounts. This is the kind of theoretical content i cant get nearly enough of
I think Caesar would’ve used the mountains in the East to his advantage. Using terrain and other tactical differences to his advantage was one of his strengths. In addition to that, bear in mind that he would’ve been fairly close to Crassus before his death. It is likely that he knew how dangerous their cavalry was, and went through the mountains instead. If he would’ve gone through the mountains, he probably wouldn’t be able to annex Mesopotamia or anything like that, however he could weaken the Parthian King by undermining his support. He could also have split off Atropatene from Parthia, transitioning it to a Roman client state instead.
This is amazing, my friend. What I love to see next is Julius Caesar becoming the first Emperor of Rome, with the Roman Empire being a semi-constitutional monarchy and having Octavius and Marc Anthony as heirs who would later become co-emperors. Then, imagine the Julio-Claudian Dynasty surviving last longer, with Emperors from the Dynasty being geniuses instead of insane or apathetic ( Caligula, Nero, and Tiberius). Is this the last part of the series? This alternate history documentary is a well-done alternate history article with actual documentation showing details of the animation. I have some questions so far: Would there be any alternate history articles based on sponsors or by the viewers? Anyway, this is excellent documentation of alternate history, my friend. I’ll give this one 100 out of 100, and please keep up the fantastic work!
Julius was planning to attack Parthia, but a complete taking over such a large empire would have been beyond Rome’s capabilities. He would have done a ton of research before invading. Were there those inside the Parthian Empire who would support a Roman takeover? I think he would have done well, but he’d conquer over parts of this empire, recreate new boundaries and make the decision to allow those who would do nis bidding to rule the unconquered parts.
I think you are 100% wrong, Caesar studied his enemies, unlike most leaders of his time, so he could develop strategies to defeat them. His great strength was tactics, followed by strategies. Pharnaces II and Pompey were brilliant generals, but could not adjust their tactics to new situations. At Pharsalus, Caesar’s cavalry was outnumbered 7 to 1. In military parlance, 6 to 1 is considered guaranteeing victory. Caesar sent his infantry, behind a cavalry smoke screen, to take long spears and target the faces of Pompey’s cavalry. H knew these were Roman and Greek Nobles, the elites of their society. They would do anything to protect their appearance. In Africa, he adapted his cavalry to a joint force, imitating Liberator Labienus. It worked. Caesar watched and learned from everyone.
Nice. I love alternate history stuff. I never realized it was a thing on YouTube until one day I looked up “alternate history” and actually found results. Seems like that search led me to the Clash of Eagles books. And just looking at those old accounts of Julius Caesar’s Parthian invasion plans led to me looking up the Isthmus of Corinth and learning about that. Learning is always a domino effect for me.
With Parthia something Caesar does that both Crassus and Anthony was lacking in is the diplomatic touch. He wouldn’t have just barged in like he owns the place. Given their noble status I can see why. But Caesar, growing up was on the back foot with his family not in favor, so he had to learn to build coalitions.
Just looking at the current map of Romania and making plans… Advancing from the coast through the second largest swampland in Europe. Advancing from the coast through a semiarid eroded mountain range (why do you think the Danube turns North suddenly), then having to traverse the Danube twice through large swamps. After that it’s only smaller swamps and forests. Lots of them. Traversing the Danube from the South and landing in a place that today has a name derived from Cuman which translates to “Mad Forest”. It’s so funny, like if Caesar decided to do it the hardest way possible.
but what Caesar was most famous for was his speed, which defied all expectations and put all his enemies at a disadvantage. It sometimes put his army in peril, but it would turn out that he would strategically ordered Mithridates of Pergamum to come to his aid at the BEGINNING of his Egyptian campaign. No one expected that, but Caesar planned it, which guaranteed him victory over Ptolemy XIII whose army outnumbered Caesar two to one.
Interesting, with engaging animation and graphics! Caesar would still have had the question of his succession. Can’t see Caesarion, and Cleopatra, accepted in Rome. Another strongman would surely have arisen. Oh, and small grammar lesson. It’s “What if Caesar HAD NOT BEEN assassinated?” Past tense conditional. English teacher here–couldn’t resist.
One thing you have to remember is that Alexander was Caesar’s idol. So, it’s actually likely Caesar would have gone through Parthia, and then all the way to India. On the return voyage, he might have gone more northerly, and into Ukraine, germany, who knows? But he would have had a much huger conquest and empire than Alexander could have ever dreamed of, and that was Caesar’s actual life’s dream. We might also be about two thousand years ahead of where we are now. Who knows?
What is the difference between the following two questions: 1. “What if Caesar was not assassinated?” 2. “What if Caesar had not been assassinated?” The first question asks, in other words,”What if Caesar was not, in fact, assassinated, but that we have been led to believe that he actually was assassinated, even though he was not. In other words, question #1 asks: ‘What if history is a sham, a fraud, or at least utterly mistaken regarding this aspect of the historical record?’ The second question asks, hypothetically speaking, “If Caesar had not been assassinated (even though we are, in this scenario, correct in our knowledge that he actually was assassinated), what would have been the consequences, or how would history have unfolded in a way different than the way it actually did unfold? So, with all due respect for quite an admirably well-executed historical article, I assume that this article actually intends to ask the second question (as discussed above)- the hypothetical one. ‘
A brilliant article, thoroughly researched and brilliantly researched. And without any demerit, I think that a very important variable was missing from this menu of possibilities; the testimonies that, at the time of his assassination on the Ides of March, Caesar’s health was greatly diminished by his illness (most specialists propose that it was epilepsy). There are even some elements that this poor health was already visible, so we can assume that, if it had survived several more years, it would not have the vigor or vision that accompanied it in previous years of successful campaigns.
Julius Caesar was intending to start a war against the kingdom of Dacia, at the time when he was assassinated. The king of Dacia, Burebista, supported Pompey, the rival of Caesar, during that Roman civil war (as mentioned in this article). The first thought would be that the Dacians would not have stand a chance. Yet, Dacia was the strongest and largest during Burebista. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, soon after the Roman leader. Probably killed by his Dacian nobles when the Roman threat vanished. 130 years later, when Dacia was weaker, it defeated the Roman Empire in two wars, during emperor Domitian. The Romans were forced to pay tribute to Dacia, by treaty! They also had to send Roman engineers to assist the Dacians. This “shame” was addressed by emperor Trajan, arguably the greatest Roman emperor ever, also the first emperor who was not born Roman.
What if Julius Caesar was immortal and the Senators had realized this after he got back up after a stab to the Heart, grabbed a blade that had stabbed him right through the hand and his hand healed up like new right afterwards. What would the Senators do then? Oh he wouldn’t forgive any of them. They would just be more crucifications like the Illyrians he had dealt with earlier. Caesar was a forgiving type of person, but he couldn’t forgive blatant betray and had to make an example of them as they didn’t really care about the fact he didn’t want to be King. Of course, now knowing he was a God, he could become King or even better, God on Earth. Octavian would be angry he wouldn’t be his successor as you cannot succeed an immortal, especially an invulnerable one that couldn’t die. So Octavian if he was lucky would serve in some sort of Junior position alongside Mark Anthony if Caesar cared about keeping Mark Anthony for anything other than being a general. Maybe have the two work together as Octavian was better suited for Governorship and Anthony was better suited to run the military. Of course, Octavian could wrestle this joint rule away into being one of subordination as the military was divided between Anthony and Octavian’s friend and better military leader (As well as a real life Giga Chad of Rome) Agrippa. What should Octavian, Anthony, and Agrippa take control of? Probably Germania, just the farthest extent of Roman control in Germania. Caesar’s enemies were likely to give up as soon as word came out that he was immortal, this included sons of Pompey which were likely forgiven by Caesar as he didn’t really want Pompey to be butchered in Egypt.
Crassus’ defeat was also due to the “Parthian Shot” military tactics which were largely horse mounted warriors who did not follow traditionl military tactics as the general might have expected. The “parting” shot quip of today, is likely derived from such a term, I think. I think the legendary details of his death could have been a propagandized story to influence public opinion, perhaps?
Always very interesting learning about history and the all of its numerous possibilities. My only issue with this article though is that you talk so damn fast it’s hard for me to understand everything you say(partially deaf). Properly made subtitles would help greatly as auto generated CC sucks on Youtube…
E, Invicta please make a article about the Balkans trough the middle ages, almost nobody makes a article about the history of the Balkans and I think you will do a great job. Maybe make a article about what if the Serbian tsar Dusan didn’t die and made a crusade against the Otomans,That would be a fun article
I believe Trajan in 100 or so AD successfully launched invasions of Parthia and Dacia, the latter conquest brought vast wealth of Silver into the coffers of the Empire’s Treasury. Both eliminated the threats of Invasions from the Parthians and the Dacians and brought peace for the Roman Empire for the next 100 years. The physical drain to Julius Caesar would have brought him a death on either campaigns.
well considering how much effort it took trajan to subjugate dacia i doubt he could pull it off, also i think it is unlikely he would have been able to decsicevly defeat parthia. later emperors had diffculty in fact the only trajan got cetsiphon but was still forced to withrdaw and led to the creation of the sassanid empire.
Honestly this article is amazing and spot on. Only thing I disagree with or would change is the idea that the assassination never happening. I believe that no matter what, they were planning to kill Caesar. No way would they have allowed him grow more powerful. What I would’ve done would been have Caesar read the scroll that Artemidorus gave him about the conspiracy to kill Caesar amd then have him arrest all the conspirators and have them executed or exiled. That would’ve been the most likely way that Caesar would’ve survived. Other than that this article is perfect.
Caesar was a man of peace after the civil war, his whole perspective changed some, you can see he wanted to retire his legions knowing a lot of them was old men, losing veterans like that isn’t good. Seeing horrors like war takes a toll on a person, Caesar was planning war, but planning isn’t really going since Rome was so spent. If Rome was fresh and crowds ready, he would’ve left right there and then. He did lot of social programs since he seen Rome rotting away and his power was based around the regular person, granted he wasn’t a regular person, but he knew the power of the state comes from the regular guy, the more money he had the more money and power Rome would have. Just common sense. Not everyone can be Caesar, but I have a theory every couple hundred years a leader shows up like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander etc. Be interesting to see what the modern-day Caesar will look like, no politician around this time can fit that bill.
Although I understand what you tried to do, by proposing the possible military campaigns based on campaigns of later emperors (some of these campaigns could only be solved, given the circumstances, in only one practical way) you run the risk of ignoring that many of those later campaigns had the experience acquired by battles that happened after Julius Caesar. These two observations do not prevent me from celebrating this article, one of the best I have seen. I will not wait to recommend it, congratulations!
Ok, aside from the article being great and all that (which it is by the way), I’ll go and nitpick about some things I just happen to notice: 1) On the map of Asia Minor, Bithynia wasn’t a client state and was directly controlled as a Roman province and is actually located more north west. Galatia should be where Bithynia is on the map. What is Galatia on the map looks to be Lycaonia and would be either assigned to Galatia or would be Roman-controlled territory (if I recall correctly: borders tended to shift somewhat) 2) On the map during the siege of Ctesiphon it shows both Seleucia and Veh-Ardashir, but Veh-Ardashir was a building programme to ‘rebuild Seleucia’ in 230s AD by the Sassanian king Ardashir. Also the map shows the path of the river Tigris of much later centuries and funnily enough on the map it actually says ‘ancient river path’ which would have been the actual path of the Tigris in the 1st century BC. 3) In the article the invasion plans show the movement of the army around the Caspian Sea, not the Black Sea. The Black Sea is more to the west and the correct one as Caesar was to cross the Caucasus mountains and link up with Greek colonies and client states in the Crimea area.
I tend to think the war with Dacia goes far better than in our timeline. The legions seemed more equipped to win the wars. The war with Parthia given what happened with Marc Anthony I think points to Caesar being victorious in his battle. The rather issue is Caesar already being old. While, he might win these and his overall desires to reform the republic as a real republic might have caused Rome to have lived longer and been more likely to succeed to being useful in technology vs just fully slave labor as the only source. The biggest issue is if he decides to step down following his campaigns which at least Dacia and Parthia are likely to be both successful and take much territory if not all of that territory. The conquest of Germania is likewise possible and given the need to take Germania to make sure Rome isn’t attacked from the north would be ideal. Yet, as we saw in our timeline holding onto Germania can be far harder and likely take generations. The issue here is time of Caesar would likely just have enough time to go take Dacia, Parthia and Germania. He likely would have gone in that order. If they did take Crimea fully I think at most they would just hug the black sea and get to Germania in a way doing exactly what he wanted, but not necessarily conquering the Sythians. As Rome later would show the same issue facing a mainly horse back nation. I think if they could squeeze out say a few victories having the cost. The Romans would settle for it. The main idea would be taking Germania and using the man power there.
I’m probably in the minority here, but so soon after Carrhae, and with so little military development by Rome and little change in the Parthian model, I really don’t see Caesar’s survival guaranteeing his world conquest and destroying Parthia. Caesar’s veterans were still present with Antony, and he had a shocking time in Parthia. The Sassanians proved that Persian Armies were able to match the Romans when they had good leadership, and geographically speaking, even under brilliant rulers like Hadrian, Rome never really tried to hold its Mesopotamian conquests. The eastern boundaries of Rome represented a geographic limit of how far Imperial power could be projected. Also, Had Caesar lived, and reached an age where Caesarion was mature, Caesar would have likely decided that he wanted to found a dynasty, meaning that no Augustus and no Antony. After all, Marcus Aurelius was far less arrogant than Caesar, but still chose his own son.
Fairly interesting and novel as a topic. Quite some speculation, but that is unavoidable, in an “alternate history” sequence. Novels and games have been made that exploit this concept as well, so why not YT vids? As a small suggestion I would say to put some more intonation and “breathers” into your explanation and narrative, since it sometimes sounded like you were rambling of from a script. Which might have been the case, but it’s better not to portray that impression. 😉 Still, a worthwhile vid with many good points, so I’ll give it a like.
Here My thoughts on this new Roman Republic*** Parthian Empire would be part of the Republic, Julius Caesar would now be 62 the Border will reach to Tocharian, Caesar will then pass away at age 64 and will the title of Caesar to Caesarion. His Reign will see army push down to Nubia and Kingdom of Aksum. Caesarion will then marry a princess of Aksum when he’s 27 and will set new builds and citys to be constructed in places like dacia, Gaul and Aksum. Caesarion will be the one to set to start Roman Empire. Caesarion will have a daughter name Severina. Her rule will not change anything but the jesus christ era where he lived will be set. Severina will marry a roman guy who was like a Pius, they have 3 children but Caesar II will be emperor of Rome. – Caesar II set 3 Expeditions to explore lower africa, England and kangju. Caesar II will die in battle of Britain with no sons so his brothers son took over as Caesar III. He will finish the battle of Britain and then march back to Rome where he wanted to have a new Palace or roman senate in Byzantium to have reach of the empire. He later went mad in his later years wanting to make Christianity the state Religion, growing his hair like a Germania and wanting to battle the Han empire, but died before going to war with Han. his son took over the empire but didn’t do much other than growing Christianity in Persia than western empire. The Next ruler was his sister who wanted to grow the empire as much as possible from reaching south Africa to Baltic.
Caesar is 55 at the time of his death. Add in the fact that he had been documented suffering multiple seizures (no documented diagnosis as to why). Most likely Caesar doesn’t make 60. More to the point he might not even make it out of the Italian peninsula. The irony is that the would be assassins could have waited less than a year for a natural death instead of making him a martyr.
I just read a book series with similar premise and took it up the year 1920. It was very detailed with maps glossaries etc. The wad still a Christ, The Germanic tribes were able to form a kingdom which turned to Constitutional monarchy, there was kingdom of Breton us and the New World was settled by Rome like in our times and the Roman colonies revolted to form own country, with Rome controlling what would be Canzda, The Japanese had settled the west coast and the Aztecs were still prominent players, the final book was a civil war between factions of the free Republic! Can’t member the name!
What if he died out of age(or disease) cause he knew that he would die soon and made a will in which he gave his all wealth to Octavian and could have made bluffs to make senate reasonable with him There r lot of possibilities and it depends on alot of aspects and change the future (ie past) from which ur making this vedio
I very much doubt Ceasar would have taken Sarmiţagetusa Regia- instead the Dacian king would have sued for peace as did Decebalus. The Dacian wars under Decebalus are a good indicator of what would have happened. Having actually been to Sarmiţagetusa and seen the terrain of both it and the surrounding Dacian forts, Ceasar would likely have welcomed a treaty. Also the Dacians and Getae were two seperate nations under one god and one king, and due to shifting politics and alliances it is likely that Ceasar would have used the Dacians to control the Getae- whilst in reality the two would have done exactly what Decebal did- play friend whilst making allies to fight back. They would then have probably siezed the opportunity to rebel whilst Ceasar was away fighting the Parthians. One also also has to look at the broader picture and look towards what is now Israel… there is every likelyhood that they would have risen in rebellion too, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the German tribes may have sided with Dacia along with the Moesians and possibly the Thracians. At that point Ceasar would have lost almost all of sountyeastern Europe and could have found himself cut off in Parthia- and once word got out there would be open rebellion in Rome and possibly another civil war. Ceasar had a massive ego, and it is possible that had he not been murdered, his luck may have run out. He was murdured for a reason- so there is no saying that the Senate may have hung him out to dry whilst away on compaign, and should things have taken a turn for the worst for the Roman Army he may well have been murdered by his own troops.
So if Ceaser played smart. He would not move to become a dictator for life. He would have been preparing for Rome after his 10 years is up. Before the war. His succession would he this. Brutus would be consul of Rome. Octavian/Augustus would become Tribune of the Plebs. Then, he would leave for a war in Dacia and Parthia. After the wars. Ceaser would have his most loyal officers elected to the Plebeian Council. And Comitia Centuriata. Lucius Vorenus would be elected aediles.
If 🎉 dr strange 😢bought 😮Aurelian and 😢😅belisarius thru the timeline, 😅could Caesar beat both of them? 🎉🎉 Parthian’s would have to be darn good 👍 to beat Caesar. They say he’s better than Alex g, who walked over Persia like he was on holiday. Would be cool if Caesar became emperor 😅 Can u do ‘ what if subotai conquered France 🇫🇷?’
The dacian campanie seams overly optimistic, considering how Traian – an more than accomplished conquerer in his own right – had suffered a major defeat in his first attempt at Dacia and was even forced to pay tribut to them. Not to mention that historic texts tell us about how the Roman provinces of Dacia were under constant attacks from the “free Dacians”. Now lets assume Caesar would have the same experience in Dacian as Traian. That would have left him with an defeat that would endanger not only his own life, but the further existence of Rome as we later know it itself! The senate would likely try to assassinate him and the defeated would likely embolden the Germans, the parthians and others on the fringe of the at that time still immature empire. Formerly subjected tribes like the Gauls who should still have ample grudges could rise up, and even Egypt with Cleopatra, could maby seize the opportunity for reestablishing its regional dominance. In short: Ceasar was a great general, but combined with the empire he lead, that was still far behind the one at Traians time, he has no advantage in comparison to Traian. Its even questionable how he would fare if he would get a second shot at Dacia. Mountain warfare is far to different compared to warfare in the planes, and as far as im aware of, Ceasar has no noteworthy experience in it, and neither do his legions btw.. At the end, Ceasars death may well have saved the Roman Empire from its death in the cradle.
In this reconstruction though it seems quite underperformed, Also I think that putting everything into a 2 years range is a bit stretched, it took 10 years to subdue the scattered tribes of Gaul so I would expect that it could take some years to subdue all of Dacia, while instead for Parthia could be just a good well developed campaign due to the centralization of the government.
The hole ‘what if’ is wasted time in this volotile time in history . Maybe Ceasar would have establised another form of government then Octavian .Maybe the Republic woule survided if Ceasar died a natural death’. Maybe No Nero, Galigula, but better or even worse emperors . etc. The possibilities are endless.
Nice! Well detailed and easy to follow. Ceaser pulling off your noeth Mesopotamia victory is plausible. A rome more focus on the east would be interesting. Megribi, Ire, Scandinavia, Germanics, and alibon become more a a sideshow/ places for resources n manpower not directly held by Rome via soft power/ client states? I would assume if ceaser had 10-20years at least left in the tank before going to zeus in middle age… he could pull off Persia conquest and have Bactrim client state before his passing. Ill agrue that consolidation of Persia would prolly take years off his life so that’s why i say that hey would die early. The onlt problem of eastern focus is logistics of moving men for campaigns of a wider and wider empire. That might be late Ceasars and octivious consolation plans. But who knows what a ceaser who won and octivious consolation clean up would look like.
What if…. well, that’s everybody’s guess, is it not? There’s no possible to know and actually? Not enough to speculate with any measure of possibility let alone certainty. Written records don’t cover all the elements in play. But, taking in consideration that “what if” is a highly appreciated past time… why not?
@initca I wanted to say this but you could of kept the assassins attempt but a trusted soldiers tell ceaser that people in the senate is plotting against him and that he should take few soldiers with him just in case… ceaser wanted a reason to end the senate and an attack on his life would be a good reason to end them for the people of Rome and all that
This is the best alternative histories ive seen on julius ceasar People act like persia was a nobody like gaul or dacia that rome could swipe through Even in best scenario, ceasar would have Mesopotamia for couple of years then there would be new wars In realistic terms tho parthians matched the romans and later the sassanid persians defeated the romans more than they lost to them
Central Asia was the source of countless invading waves of cavalry and especially horse archers. Alexander could have defeated the Parthians (they weren’t contemporary), the same way he dealt with their predecessors, the Scythians. There are differing accounts HOW he did this. One says he sent his light troops into a valley, where the Scythians (similar to American indians) rode around them, peppering them with arrows. Then Alexander arrived with his cavalry. The Scythians couldn’t form up to attack him, as they would have the light, missile troops in their backs, and, v.v. couldn’t attack the light troops while Alexander was cutting them down from behind. It was a massacre. Even in testudo, the Romans couldn’t out-do Alexander.
Nice try, but one thing we know about Caesar is that he does not do anything half measures. He would never have sent Octavian to prepare 16 legions and then use 8 to invade. He would have probably increased those 16 legions as he did with Gaul. He would never have sent Octavian back, he sent him to train 16 legions to get to know the men and gain their respect, just like he did with his veterans(now retired). Octavian is being groomed and also tested in the Dacia campaign. His men will also be trained and will serve as veterans for the Parthian campaign. He would never leave Dacia half conquered, just like he did not leave Gaul half conquered.(even used stupid excuses to declare war) He simply cannot afford to march on Parthia while being stabbed in the back from Dacia and Germanic tribes who both hate him personally. He definitely has to completely annihilate one of them or both before he marches on Parthia(to scare the other one), thus there will be no peace. That is the reason for the 16 Legions (twice as much as he had for GAUL), yes he will wait the time needed, and when it happens it will happen fast(2 year war max) He is planning a dual sided invasion from 2 fronts, forcing a confrontation with one of the armies as a result.(so Dacia best course of action would be to fight one army at a time) He would most likely send Octavian with 8 legions on the coast like you thought as a decoy, but he himself would take the other 8 legion from the north. Caesar being confident that he can win with just 8 Legions would have baited the Dacians out to fight him first, instead of a 10 year city besieging war of attrition.
Caesar loses to the Parthians. Parthians conquer Rome. We have a Zoroastrian Europe with its center in maybe our timeline’s bagdad.. Christianity wouldn’t exist and Judaism might either evolve along side Zoroastrianism cross polinating or be less influential in the region. Islam would be gone too. A second possibility might be that the Parthian empire never expands and Rome stagnates and falls apart leaving a third empire to come around and take its place.
You like the rest of the guys on YouTube who does articles like this, fail to take the most important thing into account. Caesar was dying. Suffering for serious cardiac issues. Contrary to popular belief he didn’t suffer from epilepsy but from a series of mini stokes which got worse and worse. So NO. This would never take place because Caesar would die long before it could all have taken place. When people do research they should actually do ALL the research and not skip the most important part to make their theories seem factual.
in the real world, the gradual decline and fall would have happened anyway…. only if Caesar had succeded in taking Parthia, upon his death Rome would have been dicided as after Alexanders time… Parthia would have gone their own way after Caesars death… The final end would imho not be changed… lack of ability to effectively to communiticate and control divided East and West in out timeline… there is no reason to believe it would be any different in your alternate timeline…
Julius Caesar would have left all power in the hands of the Senate when he died, or maybe even before that. Octavius would only have gained power if the Senate had granted him the power to rule. Caesar saw the Senate as the main governing body of Rome, and the only arbiter of succession. Caesar would have sought to consolidate Roman power in the West of Europe first, letting conflicts in Turkey and the Middle East be resolved later. There is no doubt he would have conquered Britain first, maybe tried to get the rulers in Basque country into a relationship with Rome., Same with Switzerland and Austria… He would have tried the civil path first and then invade if neccessary. There would have been a lot of work for him in taking control of these areas… with Germany Britain, Basque country and switzerland secured as part if Roman lands, only then would he have considered doing anything in turkey or the Middle East… Such adventures would be a fool’s errand because his lands would have been to stretched and the whole territory of the Roman Republic would have been far to vulnerable…. using German and British recruits as auxillaries he would fitrst have secured Dacia, and then the Black sea area taking all the land by the shore and securing them, after this Turkey’s mainland and the Middle East would have been possible to take and hold…. At this point he would only really be threatened by ‘barbarians’ from Eastern Europe and the Russian Steppes. Under this plan Rome would have been much larger, more powerful and would have lasted until now and further on
A better question would be “What would have happened if the Gauls had not agreed to receive the gold that weighs the weapons captured in battle, rather than if they had crushed a brood of robbers” For those who don’t know, geese didn’t save Rome, but they paid dearly for it. Bren: Woe to the vanquished (vae victis)
Yeah, with earlier military campaigns and expansions Julius Cesar would have caused the Antonine Plague or another pandemy more than a Century earlier. The Roman Empire would have never reached its peak and would have fallen apart earlier. There would be less Romanized people and less Romance language speakers (maybe no Romanian language at all) and the Germanic people would have conquered more territories at earlier times. Maybe the Ruhr region and Benelux and whole of France would form the Frankish Kingdom. Without the French-speaking Normans, the people of Britain would speak a language more similar to Danish than today’s English. Maybe the science would have developed slower, due to the educated Greco-Romans dying in great numbers a century earlier, then we would have technology now as it was in the 1920’s. No internet, no TV, no penicillin. A simple bullet wound might cost your arm, leg or even your life etc.
Even if we accept Rome as the top 1 power of the time Caesar would be dead in his campaign against Parthian Empire just in regard of the 5 important facts: 1.western people idolize Roman Empire too much and exaggerated like barbaric Gauls were similar to Persian Empires. 2.Alexander the great was a great general but he was also lucky due to his youth and the fact that Persian empire was already collapsing while Parthians were fresh and even in their downfall the Romans under command of Trajan couldn’t reach further than Mesopotamia and even that conquest was temporary and Hadrian find it as a failure. 3.The Parthians were superior to Romans in undrestanding the geopolitics of Middle East and they were superior in spying system,cunning,giving wrong informations to the enemy and make them fool and even in assassinations. 4.Caesar couldn’t saved his own life from senators how with lots of presumptions he could be alive around cunning Parthians. 5.The Parthian Empire was even superior to Achaemenid empire and Sassanid empire in the aspects of regional power and defense unlike Global power and attack. Don’t underestimate Iranian empires my western dudes.🦁
Not much would happen, he was already in bad health with seizures and old age. His political lifeline was short. In his death the empire would’ve fragmented, his nephew or his son with cleopatra would’ve created one fraction his allies/enemies would’ve created another. It would’ve been greater if he lived another 40 years. Roman society never fully absorbed the cultures they took over so it would’ve been the same over all.
I think its safe to say had he survived his military ambitions Romes borders would have went beyond the Rhine and Danube rivers and extending to the Arabian sea and with the succession secured in Octavian we might not have had any civil wars if Cesear was able to live to die peacefully and handing over the reigns for Marc Anthony and others to see. Then things may have played out the same with….just with a much larger empire under Octavius, perhaps he wouldn’t have married Livia and some other jr augustus adopted or named…..essentially if the Roman empire lasted into the 19th century, well we wouldn’t have had WWI or WWII ….. Rome would have colonized the Americas alone….Latin and or Greek would be the major language in Europe and the Americas…Kind of like Mandarin and Cantonese for the Chinese. Greece would have remained intact and the major educational center….etc etc
It is evident that you have put in the effort to do your research! It would also be great if you would also make that same effort to be sure you are PRONOUNCING Place, Peoples, and Person names CORRECTLY!!!!! The way you keep saying Dacia and Dacian are entirely incorrect according to the HUNDREDS of scrollers that lecture on this subject! It would have been a simple matter to either listen to some of them or look them up on a search engine. Mispronouncing something so basic distracts many (Me at least) greatly. I want to watch your article, I love history. However find myself reflexively correcting you every time you pronounce something wrong, and it is frustrating.