Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think much would have changed,with the exception of Egypt probably staying independent. The Roman Republic was on it's last legs and the Roman Empire beginning. What are your opinions?
No. For one thing his health was already slipping and he likely would have died soon anyhow. For another the republic was already doomed, he was simply the agent who finished it off. His rule, a direct imperial dynasty would never have been accepted by the Roman people given their history. So something like Augustine's indirect one was inevitiable.
. His rule, a direct imperial dynasty would never have been accepted by the Roman people given their history. So something like Augustine's indirect one was inevitiable.
In the case of the Julio/Claudians, indirect was inevitable, but it inevitable because the dynasty heads either produced no male heirs, or male heirs who died before they would have ascended to power. Whether it was due to random misadventure, or family homicide, there never was a direct heir available at the time of any Julio/Claudian emperor's deaths. The will of the Roman people would have been irelevant.
I don't think much would have changed,with the exception of Egypt probably staying independent. The Roman Republic was on it's last legs and the Roman Empire beginning. What are your opinions?
Egypt probably would have lasted ''unsubjugated'' until Ceasar's natural death for what another 10 to 15 years at most ... as the romans would never have never accepted Cleopatra as a consort or Ceasarian as the heir much less any roman citizen as a monarch and egypt had many riches as rome's policy then was to conquer and expand and infact the last north african territory to be subjugated was mauretania in 44 A.D. by emperor Claudius as rome wanted north africa from the wealth of egypt in the east to the fertile farmlands of mauretania to the west and all in between.
Octavian probably would have never come to power if Ceasar had lived another ten tears or so'ish and so i assume one of Ceasar's powerful generals would have assumed a dictatorship and if i was a waging person i'd bet on general Aggripa as he was a close friend to Ceasar (and Octavian) and was well respected and very powerful during those times.
As other's have said I don't think the history of Rome would have changed much. By the time of Caesar's assassination the plots and machinations that were to begin after his death were already laid out. The assassination simply hastened them being put into action.
As for Egypt, it was pretty much inevitable that Egypt would be subjugated by Rome. Egypt supplied close to 50% of the grain the Empire and the city of Rome needed. Egypt was so lucrative as it was the breadbasket of the region and those food supplies were critical in keeping the populace of the city fed and happy.
For all practical purposes, Egypt has been a Roman client state since one Roman consul drew a line in the sand, literally, and forced Seleucid king Antiochus to abandon his invasion of Egypt in 168 BC.
In the case of the Julio/Claudians, indirect was inevitable, but it inevitable because the dynasty heads either produced no male heirs, or male heirs who died before they would have ascended to power. Whether it was due to random misadventure, or family homicide, there never was a direct heir available at the time of any Julio/Claudian emperor's deaths. The will of the Roman people would have been irelevant.
I meant indirect in the sense that there was no king (despite our incorrect assumption about an emperor). Instead they ruled through the forms of the republic. The senate, the consuls, the elections etc were all retained, indeed augustin claimed to have restored the republic. Power was wielded by threatening the senate, bribing the people, creating titles like consul for life. Not direct rule by a (formally) all powerful ruler on the Eastern lines.
Augustin had no way to know that there would be no direct heirs, he did this because creating a king was against the Roman culture.
Egypt was the granary of the roman empire and central to bribing the people with cheap grain. Thus the Empire would have controled it regardless. It was actually made the personal property of the emperor (what ever title was used for that) not the state.
I meant indirect in the sense that there was no king (despite our incorrect assumption about an emperor). .
That doesn't make sense, there is no important distinction between king/emperor when comparing a dynastic monarchy to a republic. I'm thinking that you did indeed mean the obvious, and you wrote the business about the will of the Roman people without the realization that it was always a mooot point since no direct heirs were ever available.
That there was no dynasty (whatever the title) was my point. We perceive that there was an emperor in the same sense it was long believed there was a hundred year war. But at the time Romans did not see such a reality. They saw, or most of them did anyway, that the old institutions such as the Senate, elections and the like continued. At least until the middle of the third century. The reality was different, most of the power was in fact focused in one man, but this was not the way Romans of the time saw it.
Augustus deliberately created such a system where there was no king (or whatever you want to call it) because the death of Julius Caesar convinced him there could be no formal king. Much later historians, and the media, created a sense of monarchy which was fundamentally different than what Romans saw.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
