3 ms·

One of the great "what-ifs" of history is that when Julius Caesar was assassinated, he was preparing for a campaign against the Parthian Empire. What if, Julius

One of the great "what-ifs" of history is that when Julius Caesar was assassinated, he was preparing for a campaign against the Parthian Empire. What if, Julius Caesar was not assassinated and was able to launch his invasion of Parthia. Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals in history, and arguably Rome's best general (with the possible exception of Scipio Africanus). In addition, as evidenced by his visit to the tomb of Alexander the Great, he idolized Alexander, and I am sure would have loved to try to do what Alexander did in conquering Persia. Years later Trajan did figure out how to invade the Parthian capital city of Ctesiphon by moving columns down the Euphrates - so a successful invasion was possible. With Julius Caesar's assassination Rome fell into civil war. Mark Antony tried an invasion, but as history showed, he was not nearly the general Julius Caesar was. Julius's successor, Augustus, was not a military genius in any sense, and was too worried about his position in Rome to risk an invasion of Parthia, and was content just to get the Roman standards back that had been lost by Crassus. Subsequent history may have been a lot different if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated when he was.

zozbot234 7y ago
There's actually something deeply weird about Caesar's assassination. He was well aware that folks were plotting against him, and was incredibly complacent about it all - this is something that ancient sources mention again and again, not just urban legend. You can read that as him just being fatalistic (which was incredibly common in the ancient world) but it's almost as if he willfully invited the whole thing.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  I think Julius Caesar lived his whole life, believing (or at least acting) like he was invincible. He gets captured by pirates, and he incessantly demands they treat him with respect and that he is going to come back and crucify them. They don't kill him, and he later comes back and crucifies them. During his Gaul campaigns, he would regularly be in the thick of the fight, and several times came close to being killed. During mutinies, he would regularly go out among the mutinous soldiers without really a whole lot of protection and talk them down. He could have been easily killed during that time. So what we see as complacency or fatalism, may just be Julius Caesar acting like he always did. That strategy had worked his whole life, until at the end, it didn't.
  - HNLurker2 7y ago
    Reminds me of George Washington. He literally marches in front of bullets and luckily he was misses
yourbandsucks 7y ago
Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    Hannibal gets more credit as a result. Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics, manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee may have had.
    - johnzim 7y ago
      I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense - holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right, (essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy. Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!
swasheck 7y ago
i agree with about 98% of what you said, but julius caesar had also heavily mortgaged the future for the present. he had aging legions who had already mutinied a few times and he kept winning them back with more and more promises that he'd not yet fulfilled. i wonder if a force as formidable as the parthian archers would be something that ended up finally breaking the resolve of those experienced legions.

zozbot234 7y ago

There's actually something deeply weird about Caesar's assassination. He was well aware that folks were plotting against him, and was incredibly complacent about it all - this is something that ancient sources mention again and again, not just urban legend. You can read that as him just being fatalistic (which was incredibly common in the ancient world) but it's almost as if he willfully invited the whole thing.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
I think Julius Caesar lived his whole life, believing (or at least acting) like he was invincible. He gets captured by pirates, and he incessantly demands they treat him with respect and that he is going to come back and crucify them. They don't kill him, and he later comes back and crucifies them. During his Gaul campaigns, he would regularly be in the thick of the fight, and several times came close to being killed. During mutinies, he would regularly go out among the mutinous soldiers without really a whole lot of protection and talk them down. He could have been easily killed during that time. So what we see as complacency or fatalism, may just be Julius Caesar acting like he always did. That strategy had worked his whole life, until at the end, it didn't.
- HNLurker2 7y ago
  Reminds me of George Washington. He literally marches in front of bullets and luckily he was misses

yourbandsucks 7y ago

Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Hannibal gets more credit as a result. Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics, manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee may have had.
  - johnzim 7y ago
    I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense - holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right, (essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy. Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!

swasheck 7y ago

i agree with about 98% of what you said, but julius caesar had also heavily mortgaged the future for the present. he had aging legions who had already mutinied a few times and he kept winning them back with more and more promises that he'd not yet fulfilled. i wonder if a force as formidable as the parthian archers would be something that ended up finally breaking the resolve of those experienced legions.