Julius Caesar routed at Bibracte

[JennyB]

This looks like a good POD for the Gallic Wars to come to a swift and ignominious end, if the Helvetii's allies had arrived sooner. Let's suppose that Caesar is killed in battle and his troops routed. His action in pursuing them might well have seemed ill-advised, so I don't see either Crassus or Pompey immediately continuing the campaign.

How does their rivalry play out?
Does Rome continue to be a Republic?
Is it possible that the rest of Gaul remains independent (and therefore no Roman Britain either)?
If so, what are the long-term consequences of a Rome firmly centered on the Mediterranean?

 

[Kerney]

1) Crassus dies and Pompey is dominant for a while, at least another generation. We probably have Civil War! The next generation! One key change, in 58 BCE, Octavian is an infant and has not been named heir. I suspect one of his Caesar's less talented relatives manages to lose to the likes of Sextus Pompey.

2) I think one of two things happen. Rome gets a permanent dictator and something like the Imperial system comes into being. Or rival generals in bids to gain power build up local support and with nobody winning, we end up with 3-6 realms like what Sextus Pompey created in Sicily or Quintus Sertorius did in Hispanic at separate times. Italy, from Rome, might indeed remain a Republic. But Roman descended states would rule most of the Proto Empire.

3) I think the Gauls could essentially lose by winning easily and early, essentially getting a very improbable win. If Rome maintains coherence, it sets them up for piecemeal conquest later. If you look at revolt of 52 BCE, it almost won, but it did because the Gauls had united under talented leadership, had learned to play to their strengths with better tactics.

None of that happens in a Gallic Victory in 58 BCE.

4) Biggest change? Northern Europe civilize through Celtic lense rather than a Roman one, with leaders emulating Celts. This even happens if the Germans Conquer Gaul, as they keep the cities in tact, marry natives and keep Druids as advisors. 'Frankish/French' in this atl may be close to Welsh.

The Gaulish Wars are a lot like the Greco-Persian Wars, only in Gaul, the aggressor won.

I do think something like the Arab Conquests happen, and eventually the Mediterranean becomes a cultural dividing line, rather than the 'Middle Sea' it was in classical times.

 

[bguy]

1) Crassus dies and Pompey is dominant for a while, at least another generation. We probably have Civil War! The next generation! One key change, in 58 BCE, Octavian is an infant and has not been named heir. I suspect one of his Caesar's less talented relatives manages to lose to the likes of Sextus Pompey.

Crassus probably doesn't end up fighting the Parthians ITTL. Without Caesar to mediate between them, Crassus and Pompey are a lot less likely to be able to overcome their differences enough to seek a joint consulship for 55 BC (and they won't have Caesar's veterans to help them win the election either.) Thus in all likelihood Crassus never gets a proconsular command and Syria, and it will end up being Aulus Gabinius who attacks the Parthians in 55 BC. IOTL it seems like Gabinius intended to assist the exiled Parthian king Mithridates IV in reclaiming his throne as Gabinius, while the proconsul in Syria, marched his army right up to the Parthian border on the Euphrates only to then pull back his army and instead advance into Egypt to restore Ptolemy XII to the throne. As Gabinius was a longtime client of Pompey, I believe Gabinius bailing on Mithridates IV and abandoning the attack on Parthia was a direct result of the Luca Conference and a deal between Pompey and Crassus, where Pompey agreed to yank Gabinius' leash and keep him from attacking Parthia (thus saving the Parthian War for Crassus) in exchange for Crassus supporting Pompey in using Gabinius to finally restore his client, Ptolemy XII to the throne of Egypt. But in a timeline where Pompey and Crassus do not form an alliance, Pompey has no reason to call off Gabinius, so he probably continues with his planned campaign against the Parthians.

If so Gabinius might actually be able to pull it off. He wasn't a terrible general, and he has a significant Parthian ally in Mithridates IV. It's also worth nothing that IOTL, Mithridates went ahead and invaded Parthia anyway even after Gabinius bailed on him, and he did have some initial success with him capturing Babylonia before being defeated and killed in the following year.

If Gabinius succeeds he has the potential to become a very influential figure. Now IOTL he was successfully prosecuted upon his return for Syria for having allegedly taken a huge bribe in exchange for invading Egypt and restoring Ptolemy XII and thus it is certainly possible he will likewise face prosecution for invading Parthia without permission. That said there was a lot of popular anger against him for the invasion of Egypt because it was done in violation of a prophecy in the Sibylline books that supposedly warned against Rome sending an army to restore an Egyptian king. Attacking Parthia doesn't raise the same religious concerns and thus probably won't be nearly as unpopular. And of course the Romans will probably be hungry for a military hero after the disastrous defeat at Bibracte, so a victorious Gabinius is likely to be much more popular ITTL.

2) I think one of two things happen. Rome gets a permanent dictator and something like the Imperial system comes into being. Or rival generals in bids to gain power build up local support and with nobody winning, we end up with 3-6 realms like what Sextus Pompey created in Sicily or Quintus Sertorius did in Hispanic at separate times. Italy, from Rome, might indeed remain a Republic. But Roman descended states would rule most of the Proto Empire.

Pompey is the strongest single figure in this timeline, but I doubt he will be able to dominate Roman politics. IOTL the Optimates proved pretty effective in the back half of the 50s at prosecuting Pompey's allies (witness the convictions of Aulus Gabinius in 54 BC, Publius Plautius Hypsaeus in 52 BC, and Titus Munatius Plancus Bursa) and at getting anti-Triumvirate candidates elected to the consulship (anti-Triumvirate candidates were elected to the consulship in 55 BC, 53 BC, 51 BC and 50 BC) and that was even with Pompey having Caesar's support. ITTL Pompey doesn't have Caesar's support and is facing not just the Optimates but also a hostile Crassus (who is very likely allied with Publius Clodius Pulcher.) An alliance of convenience between the Optimates and Crassus/Clodius is certainly going to be sufficient to check Pompey even if he has the support of a victorious Gabinius.

The street violence in Rome is likely to get really bad though. With Crassus still alive and supporting Clodius, he will be a lot stronger than he was IOTL. That will force Pompey to maintain his alliance with Titus Annius Milo. With Clodius being backed by the resources of Crassus and Milo being backed by the resources of Pompey. it's going to be ugly.

 

[isabella]

1) Crassus dies and Pompey is dominant for a while, at least another generation. We probably have Civil War! The next generation! One key change, in 58 BCE, Octavian is an infant and has not been named heir. I suspect one of his Caesar's less talented relatives manages to lose to the likes of Sextus Pompey.

In 58 BCE Julia is still alive and her husband Pompey would be the one to inherit Caesar‘s proprieties and, most important, his clientes…