4 ms·

For me one of the most interesting hypotheticals is that at the time of his death Julius was preparing for an invasion of Parthia. Crassus had failed before hi

For me one of the most interesting hypotheticals is that at the time of his death Julius was preparing for an invasion of Parthia. Crassus had failed before him and Marc Antony would fail after him, and that probably contributed in o his fall as much as anything. Augustus saw these lessons and wisely decided not to risk an invasion of Parthia and instead reached a negotiated settlement. It would be about 150 years before Trajan lead a successful invasion of Parthia. With regards to Julius, Alexander was his idol, and I am sure he would have loved to emulate him in conquering the lands of the Persian Empire (now ruled by Parthia). Julius was also one of the great generals of history and it would have been interesting to see how it would have gone. A Roman Empire extending East into the heartland of the old Persian Empire would have been interesting. It might have led to actual direct contact between the Roman and Chinese Han courts.

djur 4y ago
I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equipped soldiers, and presented more logistical difficulties (Antony benefited a lot from having Cleopatra's support and still failed). Fighting a long and grueling war like that so far away from Rome would have meant leaving his domestic political situation in the hands of his allies -- and he didn't really have anybody capable he could trust to do that.
- jbandela1 4y ago
  Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.
- vondur 4y ago
  The Roman general Ventidius defeated the Parthians and could have possibly invaded Parthian territory, but chose not to. Probably done to not outshine his boss Marc Antony. Caesar was still a good military leader at the time, but was 60 years old at this point. He also was planning to punish the Dacians on the way over. The Dacian's would be a persistent problem for the Roman's until their eventual conquest by the Emperor Trajan over 150 years later.
andrepd 4y ago
Re: Rome and Han China. This channel is great, and they have a video about the first-hand accounts of meetings between the East and the West https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3senO4JZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3senO4JZ0
pyuser583 4y ago
His plan was to recreate Alexander’s invasion of the Indus. He would have failed.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > [Cæsar’s] plan was to recreate Alexander’s invasion of the Indus Source?
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    “Cleopatra: A Life” by Stacy Schiff.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
Caesar wanted to do a lap around the Black Sea after defeating the Parthians and work his way home through what was then Sythia. Depending on how far they got, and there's more than a good chance that the Parthians may have destroyed any army sent against them. If not, then the Romans would have had to face the steppe horse archers a few hundred years earlier than otherwise. And that would never be easy.
throwaway6734 4y ago
In this alternate timeline would Augustus still take over? Without Augustus as the first emperor who knows if Rome would have lasted nearly as long as it did
chewz 4y ago
For me the person that had changed the fate of Europe is Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer. Never heard of him? Well Julius Cesar was supposed to receive command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. And his plan for winning glory (and money) was provoking a war and conquering in North East direction - Balkans and perhaps with his usual impetus toward Central Europe, perhaps as far as today's Ukraine. But a person that have been nominated for Transalpine Gaul command Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer had died unexpectedly and his imperium have been passed to Julius Cesar. Now imagine that Julius Cesar and his legions had conquered Central and Eastern Europe while Western Europe had been left alone. And Augustus and further Cesars will continue in this direction.

djur 4y ago

I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equipped soldiers, and presented more logistical difficulties (Antony benefited a lot from having Cleopatra's support and still failed). Fighting a long and grueling war like that so far away from Rome would have meant leaving his domestic political situation in the hands of his allies -- and he didn't really have anybody capable he could trust to do that.

jbandela1 4y ago
Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.
vondur 4y ago
The Roman general Ventidius defeated the Parthians and could have possibly invaded Parthian territory, but chose not to. Probably done to not outshine his boss Marc Antony. Caesar was still a good military leader at the time, but was 60 years old at this point. He also was planning to punish the Dacians on the way over. The Dacian's would be a persistent problem for the Roman's until their eventual conquest by the Emperor Trajan over 150 years later.

andrepd 4y ago

Re: Rome and Han China. This channel is great, and they have a video about the first-hand accounts of meetings between the East and the West https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3senO4JZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3senO4JZ0

pyuser583 4y ago

His plan was to recreate Alexander’s invasion of the Indus. He would have failed.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> [Cæsar’s] plan was to recreate Alexander’s invasion of the Indus Source?
- pyuser583 4y ago
  “Cleopatra: A Life” by Stacy Schiff.

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago

Caesar wanted to do a lap around the Black Sea after defeating the Parthians and work his way home through what was then Sythia. Depending on how far they got, and there's more than a good chance that the Parthians may have destroyed any army sent against them. If not, then the Romans would have had to face the steppe horse archers a few hundred years earlier than otherwise. And that would never be easy.

throwaway6734 4y ago

In this alternate timeline would Augustus still take over? Without Augustus as the first emperor who knows if Rome would have lasted nearly as long as it did

chewz 4y ago

For me the person that had changed the fate of Europe is Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer. Never heard of him? Well Julius Cesar was supposed to receive command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum. And his plan for winning glory (and money) was provoking a war and conquering in North East direction - Balkans and perhaps with his usual impetus toward Central Europe, perhaps as far as today's Ukraine. But a person that have been nominated for Transalpine Gaul command Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer had died unexpectedly and his imperium have been passed to Julius Cesar. Now imagine that Julius Cesar and his legions had conquered Central and Eastern Europe while Western Europe had been left alone. And Augustus and further Cesars will continue in this direction.