Fate of Caesar, Parthia, and Egypt with no civil war?

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Hello all. I've been fascinated with the late Roman Republic lately. It's just such a cool era. Accordingly, I've been thinking about a surviving Roman Republic and its effects on history. After reading some posts on this thread, which argue that the Roman Republic was not doomed to collapse even durign Caesar's era. I have started to read the book cited in said posts and find it to be convincing. So let's say that for whatever reason, Caesar isn't forced to start his civil war. He has just conquered Gaul, and is now back in Rome resting on his laurels. For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the Roman Republic survives and stabilizes.

We all probably know that Caesar planned to invade Parthia in OTL, but was murdered mere days before he set off. However, this was after the civil war and him becoming a dictator, and he was at least partially motivated by his desire to avenge Crassus's defeat at Carrhae. So my question is, would Caesar have still set his sights on Parthia in a timeline where he doesn't become dictator? Would he even be able to launch an invasion even if he wanted to? And if so, and Rome's eastern border ends up looking like it did in 117 under Trajan, could Rome have kept Mesopotamia? Keep in mind that at that point, the Parthians were very new on the scene, and large portions of the east were still hellenized, so Mesopotamia would be much easier for Rome to control. Would this be enough for Rome to hold it? And if Rome does end up holding Mesopotamia, what would be the consequences of greater contact with the east?

Also, what would the fate of Egypt be with no civil war? Would Rome still end up annexing it? Would Egypt become a client state? What happens to the Mouseion of Alexandria? What would happen to Numidia and Rome's other client states?

 

[sarsenapati]

Do we know how the post-Marius Roman legions perform against a cavalry-focused military like the Parthians?

 

[Captain Jack]

Hello all. I've been fascinated with the late Roman Republic lately. It's just such a cool era. Accordingly, I've been thinking about a surviving Roman Republic and its effects on history. After reading some posts on this thread, which argue that the Roman Republic was not doomed to collapse even durign Caesar's era. I have started to read the book cited in said posts and find it to be convincing. So let's say that for whatever reason, Caesar isn't forced to start his civil war. He has just conquered Gaul, and is now back in Rome resting on his laurels. For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the Roman Republic survives and stabilizes.

We all probably know that Caesar planned to invade Parthia in OTL, but was murdered mere days before he set off. However, this was after the civil war and him becoming a dictator, and he was at least partially motivated by his desire to avenge Crassus's defeat at Carrhae. So my question is, would Caesar have still set his sights on Parthia in a timeline where he doesn't become dictator?

Personally, I doubt Caesar would immediately look to Parthia, but it’s certainly possible.

It probably matters how exactly the civil war is avoided. Is one of the various compromise proposals accepted? If so then I definitely don’t think Caesar will be heading east to campaign against Parthia as giving him another large army would somewhat defeat the point. Not to mention the profit and prestige Caesar would gain from another successful campaign would bolster him politically.

On the other hand, if the alliance between Caesar and Pompey never breaks down? Caesar presumably wins the consulship he wanted, and he’ll need another command afterward. Governorship of provinces in the east and a campaign against Parthia looks like a fairly good option there. It gets him out of Rome, but offers a potential victory over Parthia to burnish Caesar’s image (and coffers) even further. It’s far from the only option though. Caesar could also go back to Transalpine Gaul (or whatever province is created out of his conquests if that happens during his consulship) or to one of the Balkan provinces if he’s interested in a campaign against Burebista.

The need for reinforcement in the east, on top of the desire to avenge Carrhae, was apparent while Caesar was still in Gaul so I’m inclined to think someone else would lead a Parthian campaign before he has the opportunity. Additionally, I think Caesar had long seen opportunity in the Balkans in Illyricum or against Burebista. I’ve seen it suggested, albeit without a primary source to back it up, that Caesar originally sought Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum after his first consulship because he planned a war against Burebista’s Dacia. I’m sympathetic to that interpretation so I think Dacia is a more likely target for Caesar’s future campaign than Parthia.

Would he even be able to launch an invasion even if he wanted to?

Definitely, although it would require significant planning and preparation. Rome had no trouble mounting campaigns against Parthia. Crassus and Marc Antony faltered due to, shall we say, questionable command decisions.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Do we know how the post-Marius Roman legions perform against a cavalry-focused military like the Parthians?

When led by someone competent (let alone a genius like Caesar), very well. People often point to the campaigns of Crassus and Anthony, ignoring that Crassus acted like an idiot and Anthony started his campaign late in the season, forcing him to rush things. Even during Anthony's time, Publius Ventidius defeated several Parthian armies with a relatively small force. The Parthian capital was sacked no less than three times during the 2nd century AD.

Personally, I doubt Caesar would immediately look to Parthia, but it’s certainly possible.

It probably matters how exactly the civil war is avoided. Is one of the various compromise proposals accepted? If so then I definitely don’t think Caesar will be heading east to campaign against Parthia as giving him another large army would somewhat defeat the point. Not to mention the profit and prestige Caesar would gain from another successful campaign would bolster him politically.

On the other hand, if the alliance between Caesar and Pompey never breaks down? Caesar presumably wins the consulship he wanted, and he’ll need another command afterward. Governorship of provinces in the east and a campaign against Parthia looks like a fairly good option there. It gets him out of Rome, but offers a potential victory over Parthia to burnish Caesar’s image (and coffers) even further. It’s far from the only option though. Caesar could also go back to Transalpine Gaul (or whatever province is created out of his conquests if that happens during his consulship) or to one of the Balkan provinces if he’s interested in a campaign against Burebista.

The need for reinforcement in the east, on top of the desire to avenge Carrhae, was apparent while Caesar was still in Gaul so I’m inclined to think someone else would lead a Parthian campaign before he has the opportunity. Additionally, I think Caesar had long seen opportunity in the Balkans in Illyricum or against Burebista. I’ve seen it suggested, albeit without a primary source to back it up, that Caesar originally sought Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum after his first consulship because he planned a war against Burebista’s Dacia. I’m sympathetic to that interpretation so I think Dacia is a more likely target for Caesar’s future campaign than Parthia.

Definitely, although it would require significant planning and preparation. Rome had no trouble mounting campaigns against Parthia. Crassus and Marc Antony faltered due to, shall we say, questionable command decisions.

Interesting. Who would be likely to invade Parthia if not Caesar? I think an invasion still has a decent chance of success at that point if well managed. Anthony was basically following Caesar's strategy and likely would have been successful had he not messed it up.

 

[octoberman]

POD is that Julia( daughter of Caesar and wife of Pompey) has a son who is adopted as heir by Ceaser sealing his alliance with Pompey. To avenge Crassus invades Parthia with Pompey

 

[bguy]

It probably matters how exactly the civil war is avoided. Is one of the various compromise proposals accepted? If so then I definitely don’t think Caesar will be heading east to campaign against Parthia as giving him another large army would somewhat defeat the point. Not to mention the profit and prestige Caesar would gain from another successful campaign would bolster him politically.

Any compromise would presumably have let Caesar run for the consulship in absentia though. If Caesar is allowed to stand for the consulship for 48 BC, he is bound to get elected and once he's consul again he will certainly seek another extended proconsular command for himself. (I agree that Dacia is just as likely to be his target as Parthia.)

The need for reinforcement in the east, on top of the desire to avenge Carrhae, was apparent while Caesar was still in Gaul so I’m inclined to think someone else would lead a Parthian campaign before he has the opportunity.

I don't know. Pompey didn't want war with the Parthians (he called for restraint after Carrhae), and the other prominent politicians that were given eastern commands at that time (Cicero, Bibulus) didn't seem interested in taking the offensive against Parthia. I think in a no Civil War timeline, the Parthian War is pretty much Caesar's for the taking if he wants it.

Additionally, I think Caesar had long seen opportunity in the Balkans in Illyricum or against Burebista. I’ve seen it suggested, albeit without a primary source to back it up, that Caesar originally sought Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum after his first consulship because he planned a war against Burebista’s Dacia. I’m sympathetic to that interpretation so I think Dacia is a more likely target for Caesar’s future campaign than Parthia.

Dacia would certainly be an easier target. (And Pompey would probably be less threatened by Caesar going after Burebista than the Parthians since a successful Dacian campaign won't completely overshadow Pompey like a successful Parthian campaign would.)

An interesting question though is who is Caesar's consular colleague in 48 BC? If he goes with Titus Labienus (and succeeds in getting Labienus elected) then we can be sure Labienus is going to want a major military command of his own. We thus might see Rome go to war with both the Parthians and Dacians at the same time in which case I would expect Caesar (as the more senior figure) to take the more prestigious Parthian campaign while Labienus is given the Dacian campaign.

Also, what would the fate of Egypt be with no civil war? Would Rome still end up annexing it? Would Egypt become a client state?

It's possible the Egyptian civil war gets avoided (or at least delayed) if there's no Roman civil war. Cleopatra was driven from Egypt in part because she (like her father) was seen as being too pro-Roman. She had bowed to Pompey's demands that she send grain supplies to his army (at a time when Alexandria was suffering from a famine) and that she send 500 of the Gabiniani (former Roman legionnaires who lived in Alexandria and were a key part of the Egyptian Army) to bolster his army against Caesar (which really upset the remaining Gabiniani and insured they would support Pothinus' coup against her.) If there's no Roman civil war though then Pompey doesn't need grain and troops from her and won't make those demands on Egypt and that means Cleopatra won't have to antagonize the people of Alexandria and the Gabinani by yielding to Roman demands which makes her political position stronger. (There's still a very strong anti-Cleopatra faction in the Egyptian government of course, but they may be less willing to risk moving against her if they don't have the Gabinani firmly onside.)

But even if Egypt falls into civil war, I doubt Republican Rome will annex it. Egypt is so wealthy that any Roman proconsul who controls it instantly becomes a threat to the entire Republic. Thus, it's in the interest of the entire Republican power structure to keep Egypt from becoming a province.

What would happen to Numidia and Rome's other client states?

Numidia's fate is an interesting question. Rising political star Gaius Scribonius Curio seemed to really dislike King Juba of Numidia. (During his tribunate Curio called for annexing Numidia despite it being a Roman ally.) Juba is a client of Pompey's though, so we can be sure Pompey will furiously oppose any such move against Juba. Numidia should be safe as long as Pompey is an active political player, but Pompey is starting to get up there in years and probably won't be politically active that much longer. In a no civil war timeline Curio should be consul sometime around 42/41 BC, and if Pompey has retired or died by that point then Numidia could then be in serious trouble.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Any compromise would presumably have let Caesar run for the consulship in absentia though. If Caesar is allowed to stand for the consulship for 48 BC, he is bound to get elected and once he's consul again he will certainly seek another extended proconsular command for himself. (I agree that Dacia is just as likely to be his target as Parthia.)



I don't know. Pompey didn't want war with the Parthians (he called for restraint after Carrhae), and the other prominent politicians that were given eastern commands at that time (Cicero, Bibulus) didn't seem interested in taking the offensive against Parthia. I think in a no Civil War timeline, the Parthian War is pretty much Caesar's for the taking if he wants it.



Dacia would certainly be an easier target. (And Pompey would probably be less threatened by Caesar going after Burebista than the Parthians since a successful Dacian campaign won't completely overshadow Pompey like a successful Parthian campaign would.)

An interesting question though is who is Caesar's consular colleague in 48 BC? If he goes with Titus Labienus (and succeeds in getting Labienus elected) then we can be sure Labienus is going to want a major military command of his own. We thus might see Rome go to war with both the Parthians and Dacians at the same time in which case I would expect Caesar (as the more senior figure) to take the more prestigious Parthian campaign while Labienus is given the Dacian campaign.



It's possible the Egyptian civil war gets avoided (or at least delayed) if there's no Roman civil war. Cleopatra was driven from Egypt in part because she (like her father) was seen as being too pro-Roman. She had bowed to Pompey's demands that she send grain supplies to his army (at a time when Alexandria was suffering from a famine) and that she send 500 of the Gabiniani (former Roman legionnaires who lived in Alexandria and were a key part of the Egyptian Army) to bolster his army against Caesar (which really upset the remaining Gabiniani and insured they would support Pothinus' coup against her.) If there's no Roman civil war though then Pompey doesn't need grain and troops from her and won't make those demands on Egypt and that means Cleopatra won't have to antagonize the people of Alexandria and the Gabinani by yielding to Roman demands which makes her political position stronger. (There's still a very strong anti-Cleopatra faction in the Egyptian government of course, but they may be less willing to risk moving against her if they don't have the Gabinani firmly onside.)

But even if Egypt falls into civil war, I doubt Republican Rome will annex it. Egypt is so wealthy that any Roman proconsul who controls it instantly becomes a threat to the entire Republic. Thus, it's in the interest of the entire Republican power structure to keep Egypt from becoming a province.



Numidia's fate is an interesting question. Rising political star Gaius Scribonius Curio seemed to really dislike King Juba of Numidia. (During his tribunate Curio called for annexing Numidia despite it being a Roman ally.) Juba is a client of Pompey's though, so we can be sure Pompey will furiously oppose any such move against Juba. Numidia should be safe as long as Pompey is an active political player, but Pompey is starting to get up there in years and probably won't be politically active that much longer. In a no civil war timeline Curio should be consul sometime around 42/41 BC, and if Pompey has retired or died by that point then Numidia could then be in serious trouble.

Egypt would probably become a client state, correct? I doubt Rome would just let them do their own thing, even if they don't annex Egypt outright.

 

[bguy]

Egypt would probably become a client state, correct? I doubt Rome would just let them do their own thing, even if they don't annex Egypt outright.

Definitely. Indeed Egypt was effectively already a Roman client state by the late Republic and arguably had been one since 168 BC (when Roman diplomatic intervention saved the Ptolemies from the Seleucids.)

Here's how Professor Alan Bowman summarized the Roman-Egyptian relationship in the last century or so of Ptolemaic rule.

"After 168 BC the language did not change but the reality did. For the rest of the Ptolemaic period Egypt's independence was exercised, in effect, at Rome's discretion and under her protection. The first of the hellenistic kings to plan to bequeath his kingdom to Rome was Ptolemy VIII Euergetes Physcon, as king of Cyrene where he was installed by Rome after his struggles with his brother Philometor-the statement of intent was provoked by an alleged attempt upon his life in 155 BC and refers to his sincere preservation of the 'friendship and alliance' with Rome.

The last century of Ptolemaic rule is usually depicted as a rather gloomy stalemate, a period of decline in which the kings were mere puppets of Rome. This is an over-simplification of several aspects of the relationship between Rome and a client-kingdom and perhaps relies partly on the assumption that the dependence itself indicates decline. But for much of the period Rome was content to support a dynasty which had no overseas possession except Cyprus after 96 BC and no ambitions which would directly threaten Roman interests or security. "
-Egypt After the Pharaohs, 332BC-AD642 by Alan Bowman

 

[SlyDessertFox]

On the other hand, if the alliance between Caesar and Pompey never breaks down? Caesar presumably wins the consulship he wanted, and he’ll need another command afterward. Governorship of provinces in the east and a campaign against Parthia looks like a fairly good option there. It gets him out of Rome, but offers a potential victory over Parthia to burnish Caesar’s image (and coffers) even further. It’s far from the only option though. Caesar could also go back to Transalpine Gaul (or whatever province is created out of his conquests if that happens during his consulship) or to one of the Balkan provinces if he’s interested in a campaign against Burebista.

Even with the alliance with Pompey, I think people have an assumption that the First Triumvirate was this unstoppable political juggernaut, when it was actually fairly vulnerable. Caesar didn't have to deal with the (metaphorical) political bloodbath unfolding in Rome after his consulship, but Pompey did and Pompey's prestige suffered repeated body blows during the triumvirate. The anti-triumvirate political coalition was quite effective and we see when they aren't putting either of themselves up for the consulship their allies lost elections regularly. All that being said, Pompey was probably already looking for a way out of the arrangement, or to at least build bridges to the other side, particularly after Crassus (and his mass of backbencher support he brought to the alliance) was out of the picture. I'm not really sure even with Pompey Caesar can maneuver an eastern command.

 

[bguy]

Even with the alliance with Pompey, I think people have an assumption that the First Triumvirate was this unstoppable political juggernaut, when it was actually fairly vulnerable. Caesar didn't have to deal with the (metaphorical) political bloodbath unfolding in Rome after his consulship, but Pompey did and Pompey's prestige suffered repeated body blows during the triumvirate. The anti-triumvirate political coalition was quite effective and we see when they aren't putting either of themselves up for the consulship their allies lost elections regularly. All that being said, Pompey was probably already looking for a way out of the arrangement, or to at least build bridges to the other side, particularly after Crassus (and his mass of backbencher support he brought to the alliance) was out of the picture. I'm not really sure even with Pompey Caesar can maneuver an eastern command.

While I certainly agree with your point about the First Triumvirate not being an invincible political force, the anti-Triumvirate forces were only ever able to achieve victories against them in the elections and the courts when targeting Triumvirate agents. The Optimates never succeeded in defeating any of the Big 3 in an election (much less in the courts) or of blocking any of their legislative designs when the triumvirs themselves were in office. (Caesar got his entire legislative program enacted during his consulship, and Pompey and Crassus didn't have any real problems extending Caesar's command and getting lengthy provincial commands for themselves during their second consulship.)

Caesar circa 49BC in a no civil war timeline is also in a really strong position. (Much stronger than he was during his first consulship.) He's overflowing with Gallic gold (which gives him a lot of options for buying support both among key politicians and the people at large) and since part of his legislative program is bound to be land for his veterans, he'll doubtlessly have a large number of said veterans in Rome ready to act as his enforcers if needed. Nor do I think the loss of Crassus will matter that much to Caesar. (He's wealthy enough after the conquest of Gaul that he doesn't need Crassus' money anymore, and while it hurts to lose Crassus' backbenchers, Caesar's political power was always in the popular assemblies rather than the Senate, so that's not likely to slow him down much either.)

Thus I would be very surprised if Caesar isn't able to get the eastern command of his choice.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

With the basic scenario established, what would Caesar's domestic policy look like as consul?

Also, we all know that Rome has to fall at some point, no matter what our Romaboo hearts might desire. When is this likely to happen? Assuming Rome conquers Mesopotamia and Armenia during Caesar's time, and also conquers Dacia, Brittania, and Germania up to the Weser river, what alternate crises are likely to rock the republic? How would the republic deal with the eventual Germanic migrations? What would be some likely causes for the fall of the Roman state in this timeline?

 

[bguy]

With the basic scenario established, what would Caesar's domestic policy look like as consul?

We can make some reasonable guesses about Caesar's agenda for a second consulship.

His top priority is going to be securing a new, extended (at least 5 years) provincial command for himself. (He needs this both to obtain further glory and to avoid being prosecuted by the Optimates as soon as his consulship is over.) He'll also need an exemption from Pompey's law that requires a magistrate wait 5 years to assume his governorship, so he can go straight from the consulship to his new command. If he's still allied with Pompey at this time then Pompey will probably expect that Caesar gets Pompey's governorship in the Spains extended as a quid pro qup for him supporting Caesar on these bills.

Caesar is also going to have to pursue land grants for his Gallic War veterans. (Public land in Italy is getting pretty scarce by this point, so a lot of the veterans will likely have to be settled in the provinces.)

I would expect Caesar to also pursue Roman citizenship for the Transpadani in Cisalpine Gaul. Caesar had long been an advocate for that region and granting them Roman citizenship was one of the first things he did as Dictator, so it was clearly something important to him. (And of course given that Cisalpine Gaul was a major source of recruits for the legions, Caesar is going to need continued popularity in the region if he wants to raise an army for an eastern war.)

Caesar might also seek to end the exile of the descendants of the people exiled by Sulla. (This is mostly a symbolic action since it won't affect that many people, but it's a nice symbolic repudiation of Sulla which will appeal to Caesar.)

Caesar also was a big supporter of colonialization, so I could see him pushing for some new colonies. (Carthage and Corinth maybe as those would be the kind of big, showy projects that would appeal to Caesar's ego.)

If Caesar is still allied with Pompey then Pompey will probably expect something as well, though I'm not sure what Pompey actually wants at this point beyond an extension of his own command. Maybe Latin Rights for the people of Sicily since Pompey had a lot of interests there, or some new colonies in Spain with Pompey as their patron.

One reform the Republic really needs at this time (and which Caesar as Dictator IOTL was willing to do) is to reign in the publicani tax farmers in the east, but I would not expect Caesar to try and tackle that in his second consulship. Caesar would have seen what the publicani did to Lucullus and Gabinius after they challenged the publicani, and Caesar won't want to risk riling up the publicani and having them working to destroy his command while he's off in the east, so I would expect Caesar to save that fight for a hypothetical third consulship after his eastern campaigns are done.

I would also be surprised if Caesar makes any attempt to reform the Roman calendar ITTL. (Without his time in Egypt, I'm not sure calendar reform will even be on his mind.)

Also, we all know that Rome has to fall at some point, no matter what our Romaboo hearts might desire. When is this likely to happen? Assuming Rome conquers Mesopotamia and Armenia during Caesar's time, and also conquers Dacia, Brittania, and Germania up to the Weser river, what alternate crises are likely to rock the republic? How would the republic deal with the eventual Germanic migrations? What would be some likely causes for the fall of the Roman state in this timeline?

I think the biggest danger a surviving Republic faces that's different than what the Principate faced is that without a central figure directing Roman foreign policy (and with the Republican political system actually incentivizing military adventurism as a path to political power), it's easy to imagine the Republic overstretching and getting into multiple major wars at the same time. (The Romans came dangerously close to overstretching in the late 70s BC when they were fighting wars against Sertorius, Mithridates, in Thrace, against the pirates, and against Spartacus all at the same time, and it's a mistake they are likely to keep making.)

If Caesar does take Mesopotamia that may end up being a poisoned chalice for the Republic as well. Roman pride will likely make them unwilling to give up conquered territory, but it's going to be very difficult for them to defend Mesopotamia.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

We can make some reasonable guesses about Caesar's agenda for a second consulship.

His top priority is going to be securing a new, extended (at least 5 years) provincial command for himself. (He needs this both to obtain further glory and to avoid being prosecuted by the Optimates as soon as his consulship is over.) He'll also need an exemption from Pompey's law that requires a magistrate wait 5 years to assume his governorship, so he can go straight from the consulship to his new command. If he's still allied with Pompey at this time then Pompey will probably expect that Caesar gets Pompey's governorship in the Spains extended as a quid pro qup for him supporting Caesar on these bills.

Caesar is also going to have to pursue land grants for his Gallic War veterans. (Public land in Italy is getting pretty scarce by this point, so a lot of the veterans will likely have to be settled in the provinces.)

I would expect Caesar to also pursue Roman citizenship for the Transpadani in Cisalpine Gaul. Caesar had long been an advocate for that region and granting them Roman citizenship was one of the first things he did as Dictator, so it was clearly something important to him. (And of course given that Cisalpine Gaul was a major source of recruits for the legions, Caesar is going to need continued popularity in the region if he wants to raise an army for an eastern war.)

Caesar might also seek to end the exile of the descendants of the people exiled by Sulla. (This is mostly a symbolic action since it won't affect that many people, but it's a nice symbolic repudiation of Sulla which will appeal to Caesar.)

Caesar also was a big supporter of colonialization, so I could see him pushing for some new colonies. (Carthage and Corinth maybe as those would be the kind of big, showy projects that would appeal to Caesar's ego.)

If Caesar is still allied with Pompey then Pompey will probably expect something as well, though I'm not sure what Pompey actually wants at this point beyond an extension of his own command. Maybe Latin Rights for the people of Sicily since Pompey had a lot of interests there, or some new colonies in Spain with Pompey as their patron.

One reform the Republic really needs at this time (and which Caesar as Dictator IOTL was willing to do) is to reign in the publicani tax farmers in the east, but I would not expect Caesar to try and tackle that in his second consulship. Caesar would have seen what the publicani did to Lucullus and Gabinius after they challenged the publicani, and Caesar won't want to risk riling up the publicani and having them working to destroy his command while he's off in the east, so I would expect Caesar to save that fight for a hypothetical third consulship after his eastern campaigns are done.

I would also be surprised if Caesar makes any attempt to reform the Roman calendar ITTL. (Without his time in Egypt, I'm not sure calendar reform will even be on his mind.)




I think the biggest danger a surviving Republic faces that's different than what the Principate faced is that without a central figure directing Roman foreign policy (and with the Republican political system actually incentivizing military adventurism as a path to political power), it's easy to imagine the Republic overstretching and getting into multiple major wars at the same time. (The Romans came dangerously close to overstretching in the late 70s BC when they were fighting wars against Sertorius, Mithridates, in Thrace, against the pirates, and against Spartacus all at the same time, and it's a mistake they are likely to keep making.)

If Caesar does take Mesopotamia that may end up being a poisoned chalice for the Republic as well. Roman pride will likely make them unwilling to give up conquered territory, but it's going to be very difficult for them to defend Mesopotamia.

I figure that Rome is likely to expand into Germania up to the Weser (the part worth having, as it was fairly similar to northern Gaul in terms of development), Brittania (maybe including Scotland), and Dacia. I could also see them vassalizing down the Arabian coast, since Augustus sent an expedition there in OTL. Eventually, I think the republic's wars would be less about expansion of territory and more about keeping neighbors under Roman influence. You could make a career by taking a few legions over the Weser and killing a bunch of Germans without making the rest of Germania a province.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Hello all. I've been fascinated with the late Roman Republic lately. It's just such a cool era. Accordingly, I've been thinking about a surviving Roman Republic and its effects on history. After reading some posts on this thread, which argue that the Roman Republic was not doomed to collapse even durign Caesar's era. I have started to read the book cited in said posts and find it to be convincing. So let's say that for whatever reason, Caesar isn't forced to start his civil war. He has just conquered Gaul, and is now back in Rome resting on his laurels. For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the Roman Republic survives and stabilizes.

We all probably know that Caesar planned to invade Parthia in OTL, but was murdered mere days before he set off. However, this was after the civil war and him becoming a dictator, and he was at least partially motivated by his desire to avenge Crassus's defeat at Carrhae. So my question is, would Caesar have still set his sights on Parthia in a timeline where he doesn't become dictator? Would he even be able to launch an invasion even if he wanted to? And if so, and Rome's eastern border ends up looking like it did in 117 under Trajan, could Rome have kept Mesopotamia? Keep in mind that at that point, the Parthians were very new on the scene, and large portions of the east were still hellenized, so Mesopotamia would be much easier for Rome to control. Would this be enough for Rome to hold it? And if Rome does end up holding Mesopotamia, what would be the consequences of greater contact with the east?

Also, what would the fate of Egypt be with no civil war? Would Rome still end up annexing it? Would Egypt become a client state? What happens to the Mouseion of Alexandria? What would happen to Numidia and Rome's other client states?

I don't think Caesar will go in Parthia while there are tensions with Pompey, if Caesar was still allied with Pompey then he might try to conquer Mesopotamia but he could also go on a campaign somewhere else what is certain is that he wouldn't resist the urge to get more glory.
Mesopotamia would be very hard to maintain, the only way to do so would be to conquer Persia (modern day Iran) to prevent the Parthians from launching a reconquest which is very hard to do but if they did then it would remove one Rome's greatest enemies from existence which will lead to a stronger Eastern Roman Empire and the Arabs might never be able to spread Islam.
Egypt would remain de enveso independent but de facto a roman client state and Numidia would remain a client state for a while however at some point they will be roman enough to be annexed into Rome.