This series has been a year in the making and I'm overjoyed to final bring it all together! A big thanks to our sponsor Atlas VPN, grab it for just $1.99/mo + 3 months for free before the deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Invicta 😀
please combine this scenario with What if ROME conquered GERMANIA. maybe not the entirety of MAGNA GERMANIA. but German lands to the river ELBE what would the roman empire be like with the borders being extended to the ELBE DANUBE EUPHRATES RIVER'S. and what would the fortifications and cities in these very different geographic regions look like. @INVICTA do you believe these experience's and farther fortified border's would allow Rome a better DEFENSE and farther border against the HUNS and having the Germanic and Balkan lands far more developed and Romanized help Rome ease the issues of gothic invasion's. maybe even preventing the assassination's of Flavius Stilicho and Flavius Aetius.
I'll save you all an hour. If he wasn't MURDERED, we'd all be living in the Intergalactic Roman Empire and we'd have colonies in multiple Universes. Hail Caesar!
I'd honestly be super interested in seeing if Caesar manager to refocus Roman efforts in the east and how that might lead them to eventually moving their gravitational center towards this region. Essentially forming the Byzantine Empire but much earlier and incorporating more parts of the fertile crescent. Who knows how far that might extend their reign
I like to think of a Timeline that stems from either Casaer listening to his wife's dreams, or of having read and believed the message sent to him by a servant at the last moment. 2 scenarios: First, he just doesn't go, and history diverges along that path, or more sinisterly, Caesar is alerted to the plot and eliminates the conspirators with the blessings of the populous. That would certainly secure his power base at home for whatever ambitions he may have held for the future, and he would have taken full advantage against his enemies if fate had given Caesar the opportunity to do so.
RE: "... Caesar is alerted to the plot..." -- and if you ask me, the most logical person to convince or alert Caesar would almost certainly have had to be Brutus.
My first thought has always been that if Caesar didn't die and presented as a martyr that the position of emperor might not have seen justification in the long term. Augustus could use a lot of arguing that way to revenge Caesar's death but Caesar wouldn't be able to do that and potentially lose his glory when finally dealing with day to day problems
@@tomlxyz I have frequently thought something similar; the "Imperial Cult to the Emperor" (ie. the Roman Deep State) was inextricably linked to both periods of Triumvirate as well as the personage of Julius Caesar; if anything perhaps the "Common Era" should be dated to the death of Caesar, or Augustus becoming Emperor.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography Well Julius Caesar was only 5'7 inches. While his adapted son, Augustus, was 5'9. And Tiberius was even taller than his predecessor. So it would still be Little Caesar's😂
This video is so spectacularly done. I loved the attention to detail in how even smaller parts of the campaigns would have compared to other "future" endeavors by Trajan/Antony. Such a fun topic
Thanks! It was a ton of work collecting historical hints and parallels for what would have happened. Ultimately though I think it made for one of the most thorough and detailed "what if" videos on the subject out there. The hardest park was finding where to end this as you can easily devolve into fanfiction. Hopefully I struck the right balance and we can use this as a template for other videos.
@@InvictaHistory As was sa8d, the production quality is breathtaking. The only shortcoming of the video was (imo) the very short dealings with the ramifications for the further timeline. Let us imagine that Christanity would still have emerged, and that the Romans would have consolidated the Western Empire (except for Britain, for the moment, which would be left for the Celts). The weakened Parthia could have been romanized somewhat, just like the Romans would have orientalized further. Even with a parallel Christianity, and with Rome splitting into multiple parts like in our timline, I would imagine that Caesar's blow against the Parthians could have butterflied the Sassanids away, or at least changed the geopolitical situation in the 600s. No Roman-Persian war would result in no overwhelming rise of Islam. I could also believe that the Romans focus more on Dacia than Germania in the scenario, which has huge ramifactions all around the Black Sea. The Romans would have loved to take it all over and have it as a part of the Mare Nostrum. Instead of Germania, the Romans would have settled the lower Danube area, Pannonia, Crimea and Georgia, using the Carpathians and Caucasus as the natural borders. Zoroastrism could have intermingled with Christianity and lead to a very different Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. Roman-Christians in the Western mediterranean, Greek/Russian orthodoxy in the center, and the Oriental-Syrian Christianity eventually sweeping as far as the Indus valley, intermingling with Graeco-Buddhism in Afghanistan. Missionaries could try to spread Christianity into the north, which could lead to a blowback as Celto-Christians would spread a twisted message in the whole region north of the Alps. Confessional breaklines would mean the end of ONE Roman Empire for sure. And then, these faiths would wage crusades against each other until the steppe nomades (Turks and Mongols) still arrive to wreak havoc. But that speculative timeline is indeed just one of many. Instead of the Arabs in Mekka, the Berbers in today's Algeria could have created a similar variant of Islam, and then swept the gothic Spain, North Africa and even Egypt and Arabia with a new belief. What I don't believe is that Roman polytheism would have survived. Even if there isn't even a the rise of Christianity, a dualistic religion like Zoroastrism or a monotheistic one surely would have developed eventually. The Near East is such a hotbed for religions.
I've seen a fair number of what if videos and various computer sims. In most of them, Parthia in all it's previous anf future iterations, seems to find its way to being a gigantic regional pain in the arse.
The accuracy and grasp you all have on the mindset, tactics and disposition of Caesar to war is mind boggling. From everything I've read and listened too, everything you guys said about how he would and could react is CLEARLY based on empirical evidence and historical accounts. This is the kind of theoretical content i cant get nearly enough of
History Civilis does a better job with the political stuff. This channel sort of glosses over the details. If you watch 4-5 different channels you can see they don't all agree. You then have to form a balanced opinion on those variables.
Wouldn't he have succumbed to worsening seizures and stomach issues? Instead he goaded his enemies into giving him the most immortal assassination in history and ultimately his heir on the throne
Sure, but it's hard to know how fast or debilitating it would have been. You'd be surprised how effectively handicapped commander's have done in history as well, but then as you follow this channel, maybe you do! 😆
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow I mean, hell, during the Medieval ages one of the most successful military commanders of the time was literally blind. Never underestimate human will and ambition.
Yes, he was quite sick before he died. If he didn't know about the plot to kill him and didn't let them do it to become a "martyr", he likely planned to introduce the army to Octavian as his successor and die on the campaign, putting Octavian in charge of a humongous army, so that his ascension as the next Caesar couldn't be opposed. The assassins did the worst thing they could have in terms of preserving the republic, an "alternate reality" video should be about what if he didn't leave such a legacy multiplied by his epic death. The republic would likely be in a stronger position, and Octavian wouldn't be able to assert his dominance fully and become the first emperor.
You may be on to something. I saw a documentary that suggested that Caesars death may have been so uicide by asssasination. He w as s probably sicker than people knew and may not have lived much longer. If he died w as llowing in his own feces he would have been just another Roman dedd Roman strongman like Sulla or Marius or Pompey. He would not have nearly the prestige he got with as apparent martyrdom. Prestige was everything to Roman statesmen. It is possible he knew of the assassination plot and let it happen.
6:59 Parthia: Whoa? Aren’t you supposed to be dead, how did you survive your assassination? New Timeline Caesar: Actually, it was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
I suspect Caesar's Legioms would have struggled against the mobille , fast moving Parthian bowman , whose arrows were apparently able to penetrate the shields they held . That said , Caesar was no Crassus ! If anyone could've beaten the Parthians , it would have been Caesar and his best troops .
I think if Caesar lived on he would have come to realize Octavian's disdain towards military matters (among his other lesser qualities) and likely would have either molded him into something different from the octavian we know OR shunned him as a result.
@@alexkaplan6581 it would have been a good pairing. Octavian would have provided Caesar with a stable Rome heavily propagandized into supporting him and assimilated the conquests of Caesar
Is there any chance you can do a video on why we don’t hear about PTSD in ancient soldiers? As awful as war is today hand to hand combat, seeing your buddies get sliced up next to you, had to be tough.
Lindybeige did a great video on that. The essence is that war has become a lot more stressful since the introduction of long range artillery and firearms. You feel a lot more in control in melee combat than when someone just instantly dies from a sniper shot or artillery bombardment from 2 miles away.
Not impossible, but a significant challenge, which at any moment might be delayed or undermined by other pressures. As I think the video essay made apparent, such an objective might have been far from simple to realise. It would have required numerous campaigns over many years, and diplomatic work to manipulate local Parthian leaders to come over to the Roman side. All of this would take place within a context of an imperial administration in the early years of establishing its authority and building support for the idea of its transition into a hereditary dictatorship, and whatever other challenges and threats were posed along its borders stretching across north Africa, the Danube and the Rhine. I think, however, that you are right to say that Caesar would have been able to bask in comparisons to Alexander, whether or not his Parthian gains were further extended - having been able to live long enough to consolidate many other conquests and to exercise a political campaign of self-promotion around the idea of his initial success in taking Ctesiphon and thus showing his dominance over Parthia.
I think you are 100% wrong, Caesar studied his enemies, unlike most leaders of his time, so he could develop strategies to defeat them. His great strength was tactics, followed by strategies. Pharnaces II and Pompey were brilliant generals, but could not adjust their tactics to new situations. At Pharsalus, Caesar's cavalry was outnumbered 7 to 1. In military parlance, 6 to 1 is considered guaranteeing victory. Caesar sent his infantry, behind a cavalry smoke screen, to take long spears and target the faces of Pompey's cavalry. H knew these were Roman and Greek Nobles, the elites of their society. They would do anything to protect their appearance. In Africa, he adapted his cavalry to a joint force, imitating Liberator Labienus. It worked. Caesar watched and learned from everyone.
The Roman's tried and failed to defeat the Cornish in the 1st century, upon the Roman's arrival they initially recorded the "Dumnonii" but later reported on the "Cornovii of Dumnonii". The Romans colonized much of central and southern Britain, but Dumnonia was virtually unaffected by the conquest. Roman rule had little or no impact on the region, meaning it could flourish as a fully independent kingdom which evidence shows was sometimes under the dominion of the kings of the Britons, and sometimes to have been governed by its own Dumnonian monarchy, (either by the title of duke or king). This kingdom shared strong linguistic, political and cultural links with Brittany. The Saxons also tried and failed to defeat the Cornish. When the Kingdom of Wessex were expanding their territory westwards towards Cornwall. The Cornish were frequently embattled with the West Saxons who used their Germanic word walha meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", to describe their opponents, later specifying them as Cornwalas (the Cornish). Conflict continued until King Athelstan of England determined that the River Tamar be the formal boundary between the West Saxons and the Cornish in the year 936, making Cornwall one of the very last retreats of the true Britons.
Brian, sorry but this sounds really like fanboy statements. Caesar was a human too and did make strategic mistakes and suffered blunders. His first invasion of Britain is just one example. But be that as it may, all you say is that Caesar was infallible when doing military stuff. And so what? This video made totally convincing claims on how things could have developed, and clearly don't disparage Caesar's genius, at all. "100% wrong" is not what I would describe any scenario of this video! Showing what Caesar could have achieved in just 2-3 years if he had lived longer is almost mindblowing.
@@Enyavar1 I've read historians write, with which I agree, that Julius Caesar's invasion of England was Reconnaissance in force. He wasn't infallible, loses at Gergovia and Dyrrachium, but it is his tactical brilliance, as Cicero said the lightning speed with which he moved was terrifying. But most of all, the siege of Alesia, is considered one of the most brilliant strategic and tactical campaigns in all of history. This amusing take on Alesia will illustrate my point. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CnMQzyc8tVg.html
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Alexander's empire shattered the moment he died. While Caesar may lose Parthia, Rome still has several centuries of life in it plus a couple decades or so if he passed all his reforms and whatnot.
@@concept5631 But you fail to realize that 3 of Alexander's successor states -Ptolemaic Egypt,Seleucid Syria/Iraq and Macedonia itself lasted nearly 300 years and continued Alexander's legacy of hellenization,There were even Greek kingdoms in India and Afghanistan that lasted for centuries.
It was also unfortunate during this alternative timeline, if the Han Dynasty had not been temporary crippled by civil war, the envoys from 2 sides would had met via The Silk Road, and changed history further.
@@Lordturisas1No the Chinese saw them as equals. There’s some videos here on RU-vid with research on the concept of a Chinese and Roman interaction. The Romans were pretty arrogant with diplomacy always, so they viewed the Chinese as inferior. The Chinese called the Romans essentially “the China of the West” so they saw them as equals.
This is amazing, my friend. What I love to see next is Julius Caesar becoming the first Emperor of Rome, with the Roman Empire being a semi-constitutional monarchy and having Octavius and Marc Anthony as heirs who would later become co-emperors. Then, imagine the Julio-Claudian Dynasty surviving last longer, with Emperors from the Dynasty being geniuses instead of insane or apathetic ( Caligula, Nero, and Tiberius). Is this the last part of the series? This alternate history documentary is a well-done alternate history video with actual documentation showing details of the animation. I have some questions so far: Would there be any alternate history videos based on sponsors or by the viewers? Anyway, this is excellent documentation of alternate history, my friend. I'll give this one 100 out of 100, and please keep up the fantastic work!
Hm... I don't think the Julian dynasty would have held all that much longer. In the end, all dynasties fall, and disregarding outside factors, it is always because at least one of the heirs is either incompetent (as you referred to) or sterile.The Egyptian dynasties lasted up to 200, and in one case 300 years. The British neither. The Chinese managed up to 500 years, but most were shorter as well. The oldest dynasty is the Japanese, and there are some veeeery sketchy connections at times. Even if Caesar managed to rule as dictator for 10 or 20 or 30 years, his successor would not have been necessarily Octavian like in OTL. Depending on the situation, a Civil War could have led to rather different successors to found the first dynasty after Caesar. Even up to the point where Caesar would have been recorded as the last dictator, before the real monarchy began.
@@Enyavar1 You really think so, but if Caesar had lived longer, wouldn't he do the same thing as his great nephew? Good call about the other dynasties of China and British ( England) royal dynasties. The United Kingdom always had different dynasties, such as the Tudors, Stratus, the Plangategents, Hanover, Saxe-Gothenburg, and the Windsors. China with many famous dynasties, such as the Han, Song, Shang, Lao, Xin, Qin, Tang, Ming, and Qing. Japan is the only country with an Emperor, but the Emperor comes from a long line of the Yamato Dynasty, the only dynasty that has lasted longer into the present day. There another dynasty that could be rival to the Yamato Dynasty is the Osman. ( Osmanli Hanedani) in other words, it was the Ottoman Dynasty. The Ottoman Empire was ruled by the imperial Osman Dynasty, a dynasty founded by Osman the 1, and this family rule empire from the 1300s to 1923. This dynasty is known for having long lines of Sultans, but unlike the Osman Dynasty, the Yamato ( Imperial House of Japan), where the head of the dynasty actually ruled the country and became a figurehead where the last Ottoman Sultan dedicated in favor of Turkey of becoming a republic. I want to know how the Japanese imperial family became the country's symbol while the Osmans were kicked out of Turkey? Anyway, thank you so much for the heads up, my friend. It really helps a lot!
Julius Caesar _was_ the first emperor. He just died too quickly. Caesar was granted the title of imperator for life. He had all the same powers Augustus had, and most of Augustus's reforms were the same as Caesar's, or begun by Caesar. He was usually counted as the first emperor by ancient authors.
There were rumors that Caesar ignored warnings and omens because he knew that he was terminally ill. He also had conversations about how a quick death would be best. He may not have lived much longer.
@@ReuvenGoldstein1 It was an enclosed sea east of the Caspian Sea. The Soviets fucked up, as usual, leading to the body of water the size of Ireland drying up. The northern portion was saved by dams built by Kazakhstan but the rest of it dried up. The drying of the Aral Sea is the worst environmental disaster in human history and led to the suffering of millions of people and deaths of thousands. But back to antiquity, Alexander, being the infamous absolute madlad that he was, conquered a enormous swath of land from Macedon all the way to the Aral Sea and India. He made an empire the same size as or bigger than Rome in his short lifetime. When he reached the Aral, he is reported to have said something along the lines of having reached the end of the world (the Greeks believed that all land on Earth was surrounded by water). If Caesar had successfully conquered all of Parthia, which I believe was within his capabilities, Rome's influence would've spanned from Hispania, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), and potentially Afghanistan or even India. For a sense of scale, Parthia was around the same size and power as Rome, so essentially he'd be doubling the totally-not-empire empire if absolutely everything went his way. Plutarch, who may or may have made this up, said the ambitious dictator of Rome also planned on expeditioning around and north of the Caspian and Black Seas and returning to Rome through Germania. Aside from the absolute nightmare Augustus would've been put through trying to manage this monster of a nation-state, it would definitely put Julius on the same level as Alexander, if not more so if it didn't fall apart after he died. So that's the Aral Sea. I implore you to do your own research into the topic.
Julius was planning to attack Parthia, but a complete taking over such a large empire would have been beyond Rome's capabilities. He would have done a ton of research before invading. Were there those inside the Parthian Empire who would support a Roman takeover? I think he would have done well, but he'd conquer over parts of this empire, recreate new boundaries and make the decision to allow those who would do nis bidding to rule the unconquered parts.
You aren't accounting something.Parthia was a newcomer in the Middle East,barely a century there when Caesar was assassinated.Also,a economically powerful greek minority still existed in Persia,ready to throw it's lot with the Romans.So the question is:How Far would he go if he invaded Parthia?My guess would be until Media or Parthia proper.
I would guess he would have conquered the lands between the two streams of Euphrat and Tigris and stabilized the Persian Highlands as some sort of puppet kingdom. He might even have engaged Octavian in marriage with the princes of this Persian puppet kingdom as a political move to tie them to Rome
No "Et Tu Brute" ? No "Friends Romans Countrymen"?! No "Cowards Die many times before their deaths?" - this would be horrible Shakespeare would have to create a play about the Kardashians or something
The other potential alternate history is that Caesar dies at the hands of the forces of Vercingetorix in Gaul. He was lucky to avoid that fate at Alesia!
I'm probably in the minority here, but so soon after Carrhae, and with so little military development by Rome and little change in the Parthian model, I really don't see Caesar's survival guaranteeing his world conquest and destroying Parthia. Caesar's veterans were still present with Antony, and he had a shocking time in Parthia. The Sassanians proved that Persian Armies were able to match the Romans when they had good leadership, and geographically speaking, even under brilliant rulers like Hadrian, Rome never really tried to hold its Mesopotamian conquests. The eastern boundaries of Rome represented a geographic limit of how far Imperial power could be projected. Also, Had Caesar lived, and reached an age where Caesarion was mature, Caesar would have likely decided that he wanted to found a dynasty, meaning that no Augustus and no Antony. After all, Marcus Aurelius was far less arrogant than Caesar, but still chose his own son.
the sassanids could have defeted rome had they known when to accept roman peace offers, they blew it big time when they fought rome/byaztine empire to a deadlock and they both lost because the muslim invasions happend shortly after and both empires where bascially bankrupt and out of new soliders to fight off the new invaders.
@@90skidcultist no they didn't. If you're discussing Trajan, then that was only ever a temporary conquest into the most vulnerable part of Parthia. Rome never advanced across the mountains into Iran proper. Trajan even commented on how it would be impossible to go further. And it ties in completely to what I was saying. The Romans could not advance so far, because it resulted in rebellions in their rear - in Trajan's time the Kitos War. The empire was simply too dar flung to contemplate conquest further afield. Trajan appointed a brilliant successor in Hadrian, but he never attempted to hold the eastern conquests either. Most other advances on Ctesiphon were far less successful.
Yeah, Cleopatra would have been an interesting piece here, although highly speculative. However, that would have been personal history, I think. She could have been Caesar's wife and Caesarion might have become the 3rd Emperor after Julius and Octavian. Or something. All I am certain about is that Egypt would still have become a full Roman colony. The map still showed a lot of the Roman vassals in non-Roman colors, but they were effectively already very much under the thumb of the Romans. I don't think for a moment that there would have been a new Roman capital in Alexandria, orthat the Ptolemaians would have retained independence or anything like that.
Will there be more what if series on this channel? If that is the case, what will it be about? If there is none yet, may I make the suggestion? Here's my idea: What if al-Andalus was reunified under the Abbadid Emirate of Seville?
If I remember correctly, Caesar planned to rebuild Rome itself substantially, with broader streets etc. He liked the layout of Alexandria and wanted to adapt Rome accordingly.
Just looking at the current map of Romania and making plans... Advancing from the coast through the second largest swampland in Europe. Advancing from the coast through a semiarid eroded mountain range (why do you think the Danube turns North suddenly), then having to traverse the Danube twice through large swamps. After that it's only smaller swamps and forests. Lots of them. Traversing the Danube from the South and landing in a place that today has a name derived from Cuman which translates to "Mad Forest". It's so funny, like if Caesar decided to do it the hardest way possible.
One thing you have to remember is that Alexander was Caesar's idol. So, it's actually likely Caesar would have gone through Parthia, and then all the way to India. On the return voyage, he might have gone more northerly, and into Ukraine, germany, who knows? But he would have had a much huger conquest and empire than Alexander could have ever dreamed of, and that was Caesar's actual life's dream. We might also be about two thousand years ahead of where we are now. Who knows?
but what Caesar was most famous for was his speed, which defied all expectations and put all his enemies at a disadvantage. It sometimes put his army in peril, but it would turn out that he would strategically ordered Mithridates of Pergamum to come to his aid at the BEGINNING of his Egyptian campaign. No one expected that, but Caesar planned it, which guaranteed him victory over Ptolemy XIII whose army outnumbered Caesar two to one.
Caesar did not plan the Egyptian Campaign, he was kinda forced to it because Ptolemy did not want to pay. And as far as I know(might be wrong) he ordered Mithridates to come after his defeat and near death experience by drowning. If that is not correct, then please provide a reference for this.
@@jeffvella9765 Caesar chased Pompey to Egypt because he wanted to capture him and then pardon him, like he did most of the Senatorial Conservative leaders. Both Caesar and Pompey worshipped Julia, Caesar's daughter and Pompey's wife. Pompey was 6 years older than Caesar who was his father in law. Two things marked Caesar's generalship, tactical brilliance and strategic anticipation of his opponents move. Alesia is considered one of the 10 greatest battles in all history, many people rank it #1 and Caesar's generalship was phenomenal. Caesar was also famous for his lightning speed. When he crossed the Rubicon, Senators/Pompey fled Rome because, A: they didn't think he would do that in January. Wars were fought in the spring, summer and fall. B. He was in Rome in less than 48 hours, not giving Pompey a chance to raise an army. As to Egypt, Ptolemy the XIII and his eunuch Prime Minister Pothinus were corrupt and duplicitous. Everything accomplished on the battlefield was thanks to Macedonian General Achilles. But over and over again, Caesar faced disaster and outsmarted them. He has sent for Mithridates of Pergamum before he left Pharsalus. Caesar repatriated Ptolemy XIII to his command with a promise of truce, when Ptolemy broke his word, Caesar destroyed his army and the teenager was dead. Cleopatra married her 12-year-old youngest brother Ptolemy XIV and the war was over.
@@bkohatl Upon looking this myself I found out that Caesar did not ask Mithridates because he predicted the Egypt campaign, but because he expected the worst, which was that Pompey would raise another army in Egypt with the help of Ptolemy. So he ordered every troop available to meet with him in Egypt ASAP. He sailed forward with a portion of his army directly only to find Pompey's head on a plate. Late in the war against Ptolemy he heard that Mithridates army finally was close by, he sailed out of Alexandria to meet it and take command of it, since he failed miserably fighting in the narrow streets of Alexandria. All the speed you are talking about, all boils down to preparation and assuming worst case scenarios while taking steps to prevent them. By the untrained eye or lack of strategic skill it does look as lightning speed though. Caesar never saw the Egyptian campaign coming and he did not solve it in a speedy way either, it was essentially a stalemate until his reinforcements arrived. I will tell you one thing Caesar was good at that most people do not know or mention often. Caesar liked position his enemy in the worst possible positions to be without them knowing it. One fine example was when he released Ptolemy and thus making his enemy think he was a fool. His soldiers also believed it but he told them that it was one of his strategies and that they do not need to worry about it. In retrospective one can see why he did it. Ptolemy was a kid doing the bidding of his advisers, and so it was his advisors that Caesar was fighting, they did not want to pay him and it was they that started this rebellion. He originally thought that the boy had real power and he took him hostage, but he was wrong, if Caesar killed Ptolemy it would give even more power to his adviser and would rally even more strength against him. He instead put a wrench in their leadership, he gave them a boy as a middle man. This benefited him even more on the battlefield later, since Caesar could easily beat the boy and kill him without taking any blame.
@@bkohatl If you are referring to Mithridates, he did send him but not to the Egyptian campaign like you claimed. He was sent to Egypt for Pompey's civil war, which was already over, but Caesar did not know it at the time.AND yes I was wrong he did not order Mithridates after his near death experience he knew his was coming for Pompey's war rally point.
you should make more alternate history what ifs in rome like what if the Roman Empire never fell? what if Rome discovered and colonized America and what if Rome discovered steam power and made a steampunk society?
To be fair somebody figuring out and spreading a steam engine and Rome, never falling are kind of attached timelines, given the steam engine would be the first tech that made continent spanning empires manageable. Though that would be quite funny seeing eventual Huns facing off with Scorpions and Crossbowmen riding around a train platform, which kind of circles the city walls, let alone no horse would yet have tolerance to industrial noise, steam engines make.
Amazing compilation sir of your work, you are undoubtely exceptional in your analysis of the what if, and it is clear your knowledge of ancient roma is near impossible to surpass.
This is awesome!!! I came up with my own timeline where the Roman Empire survived to the present day and controls multiple star systems and is fast on its way to controlling the galaxy… using the standard Roman methods. Unfortunately, I lost all the work when my computer crashed.
Better than a number of others I've seen, where the time line goes 100's of years forward. Yet still has the same people coming along at the same time. 10 years in to the future easy, 20 fine, 50 a little iffy, 100 forget everything in the history books
Julius Caesar was intending to start a war against the kingdom of Dacia, at the time when he was assassinated. The king of Dacia, Burebista, supported Pompey, the rival of Caesar, during that Roman civil war (as mentioned in this video). The first thought would be that the Dacians would not have stand a chance. Yet, Dacia was the strongest and largest during Burebista. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, soon after the Roman leader. Probably killed by his Dacian nobles when the Roman threat vanished. 130 years later, when Dacia was weaker, it defeated the Roman Empire in two wars, during emperor Domitian. The Romans were forced to pay tribute to Dacia, by treaty! They also had to send Roman engineers to assist the Dacians. This "shame" was addressed by emperor Trajan, arguably the greatest Roman emperor ever, also the first emperor who was not born Roman.
With Parthia something Caesar does that both Crassus and Anthony was lacking in is the diplomatic touch. He wouldn't have just barged in like he owns the place. Given their noble status I can see why. But Caesar, growing up was on the back foot with his family not in favor, so he had to learn to build coalitions.
Interesting, with engaging animation and graphics! Caesar would still have had the question of his succession. Can't see Caesarion, and Cleopatra, accepted in Rome. Another strongman would surely have arisen. Oh, and small grammar lesson. It's "What if Caesar HAD NOT BEEN assassinated?" Past tense conditional. English teacher here--couldn't resist.
Part of me thinks that there might have been a competition between Brutus and Octavian to be Caesar's successor; and furthermore, that Caesar may have even taken the side of Brutus under certain circumstances.
What is the difference between the following two questions: 1. "What if Caesar was not assassinated?" 2. "What if Caesar had not been assassinated?" The first question asks, in other words,"What if Caesar was not, in fact, assassinated, but that we have been led to believe that he actually was assassinated, even though he was not. In other words, question #1 asks: 'What if history is a sham, a fraud, or at least utterly mistaken regarding this aspect of the historical record?' The second question asks, hypothetically speaking, "If Caesar had not been assassinated (even though we are, in this scenario, correct in our knowledge that he actually was assassinated), what would have been the consequences, or how would history have unfolded in a way different than the way it actually did unfold? So, with all due respect for quite an admirably well-executed historical video, I assume that this video actually intends to ask the second question (as discussed above)- the hypothetical one. '
Nice. I love alternate history stuff. I never realized it was a thing on RU-vid until one day I looked up "alternate history" and actually found results. Seems like that search led me to the Clash of Eagles books. And just looking at those old accounts of Julius Caesar's Parthian invasion plans led to me looking up the Isthmus of Corinth and learning about that. Learning is always a domino effect for me.
Crassus' defeat was also due to the "Parthian Shot" military tactics which were largely horse mounted warriors who did not follow traditionl military tactics as the general might have expected. The "parting" shot quip of today, is likely derived from such a term, I think. I think the legendary details of his death could have been a propagandized story to influence public opinion, perhaps?
Fantastic video, as to be expected. Now we're just waiting on the remaining Evolution of the Roman Legions parts and full documentary. If it goes as well as this one did, then it'll be the most glorious video on the channel. But as the Spartans once said... If.
Very interesting historically backed speculation. Your research is admirable. The return to Rome of Crassus lost Eagles would have been sufficient for alternate Caesar to claim victory and triumph.
7:23 Caesar very nearly dodged the assassination plot due to his wife’s nightmares, but was hosted to attend, if he stood his ground on this matter he would have survived.
Honestly this video is amazing and spot on. Only thing I disagree with or would change is the idea that the assassination never happening. I believe that no matter what, they were planning to kill Caesar. No way would they have allowed him grow more powerful. What I would've done would been have Caesar read the scroll that Artemidorus gave him about the conspiracy to kill Caesar amd then have him arrest all the conspirators and have them executed or exiled. That would've been the most likely way that Caesar would've survived. Other than that this video is perfect.
If Julius Caesar hadn't been assassinated, you can be certain that none of us here would exist either. Or to flip it around, we probably owe our existence to Julius Caesar's assassination. It may take some time to wrap our heads around that thought, but it is what it is.
i thought "Dacia" had the C pronounced as an S. while in classical latin, it would be Dakia, just as Caesar would be Kaesar. or so i've learned. at any rate, exquisite video thank you for the added knowledge.
It makes that "ch" sound when it's followed by E or I, like he pronounces it at the very start of the video, however he pronounces Dakia at 4:59 which might be how romans said it
Caesar was a man of peace after the civil war, his whole perspective changed some, you can see he wanted to retire his legions knowing a lot of them was old men, losing veterans like that isn't good. Seeing horrors like war takes a toll on a person, Caesar was planning war, but planning isn't really going since Rome was so spent. If Rome was fresh and crowds ready, he would've left right there and then. He did lot of social programs since he seen Rome rotting away and his power was based around the regular person, granted he wasn't a regular person, but he knew the power of the state comes from the regular guy, the more money he had the more money and power Rome would have. Just common sense. Not everyone can be Caesar, but I have a theory every couple hundred years a leader shows up like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander etc. Be interesting to see what the modern-day Caesar will look like, no politician around this time can fit that bill.
What if Julius Caesar was immortal and the Senators had realized this after he got back up after a stab to the Heart, grabbed a blade that had stabbed him right through the hand and his hand healed up like new right afterwards. What would the Senators do then? Oh he wouldn't forgive any of them. They would just be more crucifications like the Illyrians he had dealt with earlier. Caesar was a forgiving type of person, but he couldn't forgive blatant betray and had to make an example of them as they didn't really care about the fact he didn't want to be King. Of course, now knowing he was a God, he could become King or even better, God on Earth. Octavian would be angry he wouldn't be his successor as you cannot succeed an immortal, especially an invulnerable one that couldn't die. So Octavian if he was lucky would serve in some sort of Junior position alongside Mark Anthony if Caesar cared about keeping Mark Anthony for anything other than being a general. Maybe have the two work together as Octavian was better suited for Governorship and Anthony was better suited to run the military. Of course, Octavian could wrestle this joint rule away into being one of subordination as the military was divided between Anthony and Octavian's friend and better military leader (As well as a real life Giga Chad of Rome) Agrippa. What should Octavian, Anthony, and Agrippa take control of? Probably Germania, just the farthest extent of Roman control in Germania. Caesar's enemies were likely to give up as soon as word came out that he was immortal, this included sons of Pompey which were likely forgiven by Caesar as he didn't really want Pompey to be butchered in Egypt. However, if they wanted to serve Rome and gain honor as Pompey once hold to restore the honor that was taken, they can lead Roman armies to take the North African Coast that would eventually be ruled by Rome that has yet been taken as of yet. Cleopatra wouldn't be happy that her son couldn't have any role in Rome as Julius Caesar again had no need for a successor, but it is likely Caesarion would still be a Governor of Egypt on behalf of Rome instead of running an independent Kingdom. Cleopatra can help supervise her son, but that is about it. Caesar would conquer the Thracians, Dacians, Jews, Armenians, the Caucasus, Sarmatians, the Parthians, all lands in between and even all of India, Arabia and Eastern Africa, even towards the Swahili Coast. Christianity would still come about, but given Caesar was immortal and couldn't die, while Jesus can die and wouldn't resurrect, people would lose all hope of rebelling against him. Even as a new prophet rose in the Arabian Peninsula, he would be stamped out too for this Semi-Monotheistic Imperial Cult that worshipped Julius Caesar as God. As Caesar was indeed immortal, invulnerable, and would still be alive even today. All you Christians and Muslims would be adherents of the Imperial Cult and would be worshipping Julius Caesar as God instead of Jesus, Yahweh or Allah. In fact, Caesar and Allah would be the same thing.
Caesar is 55 at the time of his death. Add in the fact that he had been documented suffering multiple seizures (no documented diagnosis as to why). Most likely Caesar doesn’t make 60. More to the point he might not even make it out of the Italian peninsula. The irony is that the would be assassins could have waited less than a year for a natural death instead of making him a martyr.
well considering how much effort it took trajan to subjugate dacia i doubt he could pull it off, also i think it is unlikely he would have been able to decsicevly defeat parthia. later emperors had diffculty in fact the only trajan got cetsiphon but was still forced to withrdaw and led to the creation of the sassanid empire.
@@vaeldrnero6251 Quite wrong on 2 points... Romania, was a name which appeared first in the XIX century. Romanians are descent of roman and dacian population, this can be seen also in the language. The Romanian language is a combination between Latin (major contribution) and Dacian (minor contribution) + some influences from Ottomans and Russia.
I’ve been waiting for a really, REALLY in depth video on this, thank you so much! Me, you and everybody else viewing this may not be alive today if he did live. Hail Caesar 😂
