What if the Ides of March Failed?

in prehistoric island, or what made Alexander truly great.

With a subscription to History Hit, you can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com/subscribe.

Hello and welcome to a slightly different episode of the ancients where we're exploring a hypothetical scenario. One of the biggest, what-if moments of ancient history, what if Julius Caesar was not assassinated on the Iades of March?

“Just how different would ancient history would history today look?”

It's a fascinating thing to think about, that many people have thought about over the centuries.

Now this is the first time on the ancients we've ever done one of these hypothetical scenarios

and delve deep into theories of what could have happened next and we'd love to hear what you think of it. If you enjoy this style of episode, we'll certainly look to do more in the future. Now let's get into it. The 15th of March, 44 BC, the Iades of March.

Julius Caesar, dictator of Rome, 55 years old, has just arrived outside the gleaming stone theatre of his old rival Pompey, a monumental marble complex and the location of that day's important Senate meeting. Majorits of Senators, the elite of the Roman Republic, have gathered for it. They are keen to see and petition Caesar before he leaves Rome on a military expedition

to the east, a war of revenge against the Parthians, a chance for Caesar to emulate his hero Alexander.

But first, he has to attend this meeting, and the Romans supposedly had not been good.

Before he had even left his house, his wife, Calpania begs him not to go, fearing a plot. Then on route, he spots a suith sale, who had already told him to be where this day. Caesar had cast aside both these warnings and several more. Undeterred, he enters the meeting room, where hundreds of Senators await him, dozens of conspirators in their midst.

And at Caesar's growing power, acting like a king in all-but-name, these disillusioned Senators have decided to act. As Caesar lowers himself regally on his throne, the signal is given. The conspirators leap forward, drawing their daggers concealed in their togas, and delivering below after violent frenzy to blow, staining Caesar's purple robe blood all read.

Twenty-three Stabrooms later, Caesar collapses, unable to speak near the statue of Pompey, and breathe his his last, his great ambitions, and life, cut shoot. That was the famous or infamous end of Julius Caesar, an assassination that would prove the death now for the Roman Republic. But what if he had survived the heights?

“And if this assassination attempt had never happened, or what if it had failed?”

What would have happened next for Julius Caesar, the Roman Empire, and the ancient world? To discuss this fascinating alternative history with me, is Dr. Hannah Cornwell, associate professor in ancient history at Birmingham University. Hannah, it is such a pleasure to have you back on the podcast. I think we both have an interest in, and there's a lot to talk about.

There is, isn't it? I love, once in a while, doing these kind of alternate history ones, what if moments, what if Caesar hadn't been assassinated? Because it feels like this is something that they even discussed in ancient times. And one of those big moments, what if the eyes of March hadn't happened?

Absolutely, it's, and the eyes of March has such currency, I think, even for us today.

“I think most listeners, if not all, will have probably heard, but where the eyes of March,”

thanks to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. But it was also something that the ancients, after Caesar's assassination, spoilers, that happened. What we're also talking about, and it was a sort of concept for them, Cistero, about 11 months, after Caesar had been killed, wrote letter to Cassius, one of the assassins or liberators,

There would have been nothing left, you know, Cistero saying, "I would have ate and left

no crumbs. I wanted to be there.

“I wanted to be part of that moment in history, but Cistero hadn't been invited.”

He hadn't known about the plan to assassinate Julius Caesar on the eyes of March. Brutus himself, two years after the assassination, was minting coins with his head on the obverse, the head side of the coin, and on the reverse, the tail side of the coin, he commemorates the date, which is really unusual in ancient coins, and the picture on that side of the coin is two daggers, either side of a freedman's cap.

So he's saying this was an act of tyrannicide to liberate the Republic." It's interesting that you mentioned those big names, of course, on that side of the fence,

as it were, those who were involved in wanting to remove Julius Caesar and who ultimately

did. Just also you mentioned that Cistero calls it a banquet. I'm guessing that's just colourful language for the multiple stabbing of Caesar in the room near the Cennet house. Yes, he's imagining it as this sort of almost not quite a party, but something that

was a moment to be celebrated and almost enjoyed, which is a very much carbway of thinking about it, because you're absolutely right what happens on the irides of March, which is just the Roman way of saying the 15th of March, the middle of the month. This was the date at which the Cennet was summoned to a meeting, before Caesar was going to depart on a plant campaign in the east, and it was held in the Senate House of Pompey,

not the Senate House we tend to think about in the Roman forum. Pompey, the great Caesar's great rival, had built on the campus marshes, which is the floodplain next to the Tiber, a monumental complex with a theatre, a temple to Venus, Victrix, Venus to Victor, and conveniently a meeting place for the Cennet, so he could meet the Cennet outside of the city proper.

This is where the Cennet meet on the 15th of March, which then becomes sort of almost potentous that when Caesar is assassinated and dies, he falls at the foot of a statue of Pompey, it's great rival. So, those are some of the key events, isn't it, because the actual story, if he was right

“that we start with actually explaining what happened on the irides of March, doesn't it?”

Because the tale of Caesar's assassination, I think they're five different sources that recount it in varying levels of detail, and some of them differ in particular moments

in it, but it always seems to be the overarching narrative is pretty similar, like Caesar

going from his house in the morning, I think one of the accounts, there's a soupsare saying beware of the irides of March, or we said that earlier hasn't he, like he sees the soupsare again supposedly on the day, and Caesar says, look, the irides of March are here, I'm still alive, haha, haha, but according to, I think that's in the later Roman biography of Thornus, and then the soupsare supposedly cleverly replies, snarkly replies, yeah, but

they're not over yet, but I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. Exactly, and Thornus, alongside recording the account of the Suicide, also talks about Caesar's wife, Carl Pernier, having a dream, dreams the Romans are, you know, portend the future, she dreams that the pediment of the house crashes down, and that he is sort of killed in the rubble.

So there are supposedly portends warning of what will happen on this day, but come the 15th of March, the Senate is gathered in the Curia, the Senate House of Pompey, on the campus marshes, and Caesar, when he woke up in the morning, apparently was suffering from a bout of ill health, which he had been suffering of late in later on. Which is interesting, very interesting, it's saying right here, yeah, but he is persuaded by

one of the conspirators to attend the Senate, they're all waiting, they want to hear him, and he gets there about 11 o'clock, slightly late in the day, because obviously he's had a late start. The Senate meeting starts as normal, he's seated in this curial chair as the magistrate, and one of the conspirators approaches him, and sort of touches his toga, at which point this frenzy begins. We're told there were about 60 plus individuals who were part of the

conspiracy, but Sue Tonius tells us that there were 23 stab wounds on his body, but only one apparently according to the doctor who subsequently examined him was fatal. It just took one blow, though. Yes, and it's also, I was funny, interesting, this point that, isn't it something that the Senate, the whole of the Senate was some like 900 members, it was several hundred members, and actually only 60 of them were conspirators, so actually the largest scheme of things,

it's only a small amount, but it was enough. Yeah, that's a really good point, Tristan, because, yes, Caesar had expanded the Senate to 900, filling it with a number of his supporters,

“and I suppose it's important to remember that he counted individuals like Brutus and Cassius as”

as his supporters. He had them lined up for magistrate's and public positions in the coming years,

earlier, Cicero himself, he was still a prominent political figure, apparently had no inkling about what was going to happen on the 15th of March. Well, let's explore then what Caesar's world looks like around that time, just before he is assassinated, so we can then move into the question of what if it doesn't happen for one reason or another. So you mentioned already that Caesar, well, he's a consul at this time, so he's very, very powerful, but how powerful is he? I mean,

“what is his actual position? What is his status in? What is still at that time, the Roman Republic?”

So yes, Caesar is one of two consuls, and it's really important to understand

Republican structures at Rome in terms of constitutional matters. Is that there is never meant to be

one individual in charge of the state, loading it over everyone else, he always had two consuls, even though they alternate the months that they're sort of overseeing affairs. So Mark Antony was Caesar's co-consul, but we also have to factor in the fact that Caesar wasn't just consul, and this wasn't the first time he was consul either, he'd had numerous consulships, by that point, which was not illegal, but it was impressive, but this year he'd also been

given the title Dictator Pepecho. Now that is often translated, particularly by the Greek sources, and by our own translations as dictator for life, but it might be more accurate to translate it as dictator without interruption, or dictator continuously, perpetually, which is to say that there was

“not a fixed terminus point to that office, and I think it's important to realise that for the Romans,”

until fairly recently in their history when we're looking at, the Dictatorship was a constitutional office of the state, it's not how we conceptualise the Dictatorship as a totalitarian regime. It was an emergency measure, normally for a fixed period of time, say six months, things were going really badly wrong, you still had two consoles, but you wanted one individual,

normally in a military capacity to take charge of things with a second in command, and then

they were set aside the office, and everything would continue normally. So to be dictator without any time limit set is kind of concerning for Caesar's peers and contemporaries, you know, when is he going to set aside the control he has over the Roman state, which is, as I said, normally for an emergency measure, but he's had these Dictatorships from 49, for 11 days, and then by the time he gets to sort of 46, extended to 10 years, and now who knows when he'll

give back Rome to the Roman people and to the Senate. And alongside that, I kind of dictator

“perpetuate a title. He also has lots of other honours as well, doesn't he? I remember talking to”

Dr. Emma Sutton about this, she made a big point of his red boots that he wears and all of that. So what other honours do we know about? So yeah, absolutely right, these sort of external markers of status, some of which are linked to his official positions, as Kant Soul of dictator, others have been awarded to him by the Senate. It's important to realize, but going back to the point, he has packed the Senate with supporters, that on a him and a variety of ways, it's also worth remembering

he is Pontifex Maximus, a position you hold for life, which is to oversee all of Rome's state religion.

He's given the honour of always being allowed to wear the triumphal outfit, so sort of purple

toga embroidered toga that you wear in triumph, but he can wear it whenever there is a public occasion or event. So in that sense, he's always presenting as the victorious general, the triumphant or a normally the triumph is one day. He's supposedly given a cult, kind of made it, not a living god per se, but they appoint a priest who's Mark Antony allegedly to oversee the cult to him. He's given us sort of golden chair of office. His state is not being exaggerated, but it's

being demonstrated so visibly to the Senate, to the whole of Rome, that he is exceptional beyond anything that the Romans have had thus far. Well, I guess is it's since the time of the King's almost, because it almost feels without cult like portrayal, I might think of these, those great kingdoms, in Greece and Egypt, the colonies, and so on, that kind of divine rule of cult, as you say, not quite divine, but almost that name King, it feels like Caesar is urging towards

being a king in all but name. Well, yes, there's the famous event that happens a month before his assassination, which is the Roman festival of the Lubrical, the Lubricalia, on the 15th of February, it is at this event that he is on numerous occasions supposedly offered a laurel crown, so a victor's reef, but within that is placed the diadem, which is a mark of kingship,

and he refuses, then it's laid in his lap, and he refuses, and finally Mark Anthony,

“who allegedly is completely naked and oiled up, because he is, he is the director of the Lubrical”

Festival, and that's about young men running through the streets, but he places the crown on Caesar's head, Caesar again refuses, he fricose, chucks it into the crowd, and the crowd, both sort of enjoy this, but from different perspectives, some of them are telling him no, take the crown, take the crown, others are saying no, no, it's a good idea that you didn't, he makes a statement, "Look, I'm not king, I'm not Rex, I'm Caesar, because Rex is the Latin for king,

but it is also a name, so you can have someone called Marcia's Rex, so we say, look, I'm just Caesar, Rex is not my name, but it's this display of refusal, and to be in a position where it

could be offered to you, and he has such a position of power that he can refuse, but there's always

the potential that he could say yes as well, and that's really unsettling for his contemporaries, that someone is in that position. It's also worth bearing a mind in 44 that his portrait starts appearing on coins, minted at Rome, and whilst there have been Romans on coins previously, they've been coins out in the Greek East, or they might have appeared on the tail side of the coin, being depicted in a tranquil chariot, but to have your portrait on the coin, which is a position

traditionally reserved for either the great and the good of Rome's past, so long since dead,

“or the gods. Again, it's edging towards that Hellenistic kingship, is he divine or not?”

What is his position within the state? That, together with the writing on the coin, saying he is dictator without interruption, is sending quite strong messages. A couple of things to

mention there. First of all, that looper-caleer festival sounds absolutely bizarre, like,

naked men running through the street, and Mark Ansteep, putting out a crown from somewhere. I don't know a reason somewhere, even. But of course, this is a few years after, like he's been, he's done his campaigns in gold, he's done the civil wars, hasn't he? So all of his former opponents like Keto, Pompeii, they've all been killed, so he feels like the last man's standing. He's changed time as well, and I love the same act, as he was changing the calendar to more

align with the agricultural seasons, the Julian calendar, or his scholars have. And yes, we talk about the conspirators and how they will portray themselves as liberators later on. But Hannah, I kind of want these last questions to get a clear sense of Caesar at that time. It's actually just how popular was he with the elite, with the everyday people, and with the

“soldiers, I think let's go through them one at a time. So that's a really good point, because as we”

have already mentioned, as you pointed out, Tristan, that those involved in the assassination are really small minority, and that Caesar has enlarged us in it with his own supporters. So ostensibly, everything the Senate has been doing, all these honours they've been giving him, they're just feeding the beast. And it's perhaps we're seeing the foreshadowing of the Senate as it will be under Augustus, and the early prince of it, where it becomes quite sycophantic.

And by the time Augustus is succeeded by Tiberius, he doesn't really know what to do with the Senate, he wants to make it functioning, and they're just like, tell us what to do, we'll do what you say. So he might see this beginnings of the yes man sort of syndrome. But he's also sort of responsible for bringing stability after civil wars, as you mentioned, removing opponents. And there's a lot of legislation he puts in place, and then last few years of his life, he increases the number of

magistrate. So he's offering opportunities for members of the elite to have more of a say in politics and administration and legislation, which could be a positive thing, particularly after civil war. With the soldiers, he's obviously incredibly popular. One of his legislations before he dies is to ensure that there are colonies for his soldiers to settle in in retirement. And as we know from his will, money was left to both his soldiers and to the people of Rome, or his states were left

to the people of Rome. So he's he's done a lot in his life, but also posthumously to make him popular. We do get hints of an undercurrent of concern, and of course it's not clear precisely where this is coming from besides his elite opponent. So there's graffiti that appears one of his statues saying Brutus was made console first, and this is referring to the first console of the Roman Republic, Lucius Unius Brutus in 509, who got rid of the kings. So there says Brutus was made

console first, since he threw out the kings, he by his Caesar, since he's thrown out the consoles eventually gets to be king. And on the Statue of Brutus, there's also a graffiti which says if only you are living. So there's a sense about is there a public no longer the Republic? Are we heading towards Monarchy? Is that something we should be concerned with? But of course we're reading this through a lot later sources, and someone like Sua Tonius in Imperial Biographer loves gossip, loves scandal,

are these graffiti political statements in public that are kind of calling Caesar out potentially. And as you mentioned earlier with that famous scene in the Lupicalia where it seems like some are okay with him potentially doing it. Others aren't so it's interesting to see how much truth there is in that split opinion idea. Well this is all really important for getting a good sense of Caesar's position around the time of the eyes of March. And how do we do know what he was planning

“next? So what is Caesar's situation around let's say mid-March 44 BC? What is he aiming to do?”

So he is aiming or the 18th of March to leave Rome and to march east? Three days later, there is the right. Exactly, he has plans, he has plans. We know Caesar as a fantastic military general, he's conquered Gaul, he's been successful in Spain, he's put down numerous internal conflicts across the Mediterranean. The one thing still standing that Rome has not managed to do is to conquer Pantheon. Now Pantheon is a kingdom to the east of the or an empire to the east of the Euphrates.

Which Rome has had intermittent contact with since the beginning of the first century BC but

had never successfully conquered. It was a goal of Pompeo the Great to sort of wrap up his sort of

imperial world conquest by conquering Pantheon, but he never did. And Rome had suffered previous defeats and setbacks, so particularly under Crassus in 54 and 53, devastating defeat by the Pantheons.

“Rome's concern about its eastern frontiers, if we can talk about that or its eastern provinces,”

from the possibility of a Pantheon threat, plus Caesar's desire to be that world conqueror, to do one better than Pompeo and other great generals of the past, is driving him towards his Pantheon campaign. And we know that this was meant to be a three-year campaign. Legion's had already been sent out to Macedonia and he's all set to go. He had made plans for the administration of the Roman state in his absence. As dictator, he still had that right. And so he has

basically pre-appointed, pre-selected the various annual matrices for the next three years.

And people like Brutus and Cassius are given public positions, which they take up after his assassination. They're quite happy to say yes. We'll be seeing your magistrates now that we've gotten rid of you. Thanks to you giving us these positions. So his plan was to go out campaign for three years, might have been extended, might have not. And with your assurance that the city of Rome and its administration were being taken care of by people he trusted. And yet he's still, yes, he's general in

the field, he's away from Rome, but he still has that title of dictator. So he's still a big man, but he's going back on his expeditions to the east. And a couple of things for what you mentioned there. So Parthia, you freighties river. So think ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, and Iran, Macedonia as well. So it can up north and Greece area today. So it's interesting. It seems that we actually have quite a lot of information around the logistics of his planned campaign. Don't

we hand us. So there are sources that talk about what seeds are having planning to do on this expedition,

“which will delve into. I think first and foremost, does this also emphasise the urgency of those”

conspirators that they had to take him out on the irides of March? And if they missed that day, he's gone. He's gone for three years, so they missed their opportunity. Absolutely. It is very fortuitous for them that there's Senate meeting is called on the 15th of March, just a couple of days before his departure. Our sources tell us that they had debated a couple of other options when they might be able to catch him to attack him. One was going to be when he was holding

elections on the campus marshes. As he would be overseeing them as console, and attack him there, another was to maybe attack him when he was on the sacred way, the particular road in Rome, going home, or perhaps outside the theatre. But they're presented with this opportunity, and how can they not take it? This is, you know, as you say, he's going to be away for three years. Yes, potentially he could have been killed in campaign, but he proven pretty resilient and an excellent

general to date. Yes, the pathions had been a particular threat and had killed crisis and large numbers of the Roman army, but they evidently did not want to take that risk. The iads of March

was also potentially, or fortuitously significant, historically, like in the second century BC,

it was the beginning of the year, and it's when the consoles used to enter office. So potentially it has this idea of reinforcing the annual matrices of the Roman state. We have consoles every year. We do not have a dictator. That was perhaps just a sort of added bonus, but it was more the fact that this is our moment, and if we don't take it now, when. So let's envisage that they didn't

they missed the boat. So those figures that say they stay in Rome, and Caesar does head out to the

“east. Now, do we know much without going too much into the nerdy logistics, nitty gritty details that's”

sometimes, well, maybe me's myself personally a bit too much. Love to delve into a military campaigns. We're not going to bore you, Hannah, or any of our audience or that, but do you get a sense from any surviving sources as to how Caesar wanted to conduct this campaign about the Parathy and how he wanted to go east? So some of our sources suggest that he was going to approach partheor through Asia, in eastern Europe, and this was partly due to concerns about the kingdom of

Dacia, already, who had sided with Pompey at the Battle of Fasalus. Although it's a bit vague

precisely that he was going to sort of, you know, march through them, subdued them, but there's

also a suggestion that they actually came to an agreement to submit to seeds without conflict before he set out, but because he died, they kind of rescinded on that, and that was a battle left for another day, and another general. Because Dacia's Romania isn't it, and actually it's more like the Emperor Treyjen more than 100 years later, it would take control of it. Yes, interestingly, Treyjen's main campaigns will be Dacia and Parthia. So Parthia is still the far

reaches that Rome is trying to sort of conquer, in order to have that sort of idea of a global Alexandria and world empire. But, I mean, we can also think about the approach to Parthia in relation to previous campaigns, such as the campaign of Crassus, which had gone horribly wrong, supposedly one of their main tour guides, someone who was meant to be guiding them through the Parthian terrain was actually in the pay of the Parthian King and led them astray, but it was also the issue

about being up against the Parthian cavalry, with their heavily armored horses, but also their light armored Parthian archers, and Parthian archers are renowned for their skill in battle. So coming up against the enemy that the Roman legions had perhaps not encountered before on that scale was problematic for them for Crassus. But, we can also look to the future after Caesar's assassination because there are further campaigns in Parthia, and Mark Anthony sends one of his legates

publish Bentidius to Parthia in 40 and 40 and 39, and he actually has many successes against Parthia. He kills the Roman turncoat Labianos who's been working for the Parthians. He kills the Parthian air in battle. He gains all the lands that Rome has lost to Parthia in these years and has a

“triumph in Rome over Parthia. So there are ways to success and Caesar, I think, who we know from his”

other campaigns and accounts is very skilled in using scouts, an investigation in the layer of the land, in strategy as well as moving very fast. So we can sort of use that as well to think about how much you've approached a campaign against the Parthians. It's fascinating what it visits it, which I'm trying to figure out is what he may well have done. And I think, isn't there, Rome has this fascinating setup where on the borders of its empire or Republic of this

time, there are kingdoms that have a lot of client kingdoms almost that help them on the frontiers with certain things. And is it the kingdom of Armenia at that time, which is close by, which could have been a helping hand? Yes, absolutely. So yes, scholarship often talks about client kings. It's perhaps more accepted to think about these as friendly kings or kings who are friends and allies of the Roman state. But absolutely, these areas provide almost a buffer zone.

So they're not directly administrative by Rome, but they have this arrangement. And absolutely Armenia, which is the kingdom just west as it were of Parthia, on the Euphrates, is an allied kingdom of Rome. So you're absolutely right, Tristan, that there was a whole host of resources in terms of kingdoms in the East, in Asia, in Turkey, with their own armies and resources that could

“also be called on. So absolutely, I think, you see there would not be a verse to drawing on those”

connections as well. I'm sorry if you really mentioned this, but did he plan this to be his biggest campaign to date, which is quite something given Caesar's record up to that point? Yes, absolutely. So we have the sources sort of talk about this in relation to his other campaigns that, you know, he's, he's advanced westwards as far as you can go, like in Spain, for example, he's reached the Atlantic. He's gone into Britain, which means he's cross-croft ocean. Ocean in there, my

identity. Yeah, the chance to, yes. The concept of Oceanist, this world sea, and for them, yes. Thingless channel is that, or at least you can frame it like that. And this was going to be the

Eastwood campaign that would basically subdue everything, land and sea, under the power of a single

individual, that was Caesar. Right. So is this very much the Alexandrian, the Alexandre,

can make comparisons to his erstwhile son and Lord Pompeo the Great, thus often named because of,

“again, aspiring to be like Alexandre the Great, the Macedonian king, who, you know,”

supposedly conquered the known world, getting as far as India. And Pompeo himself had had triumphs over three continents. You know, he had triumphed over Spain, over Africa, and also over Asia, and Pontus. And he had aspirations again to conquer everything that was in

the boundaries of this world ocean. He had wanted to go against the pathions and never did,

but that was how he was going to connect up his kind of military achievements as well. So this elusive Eastern conquest, seems by the time we get to Caesar's hoped for pathion conquest, they're sort of the cherry on top of the cake. If you can conquer that, not only are the greatest military commander of all time, but you have bound together the world under, under your rules at where. Because we also have that famous story, isn't it, from, from many, many years earlier,

when Caesar's in Spain before he's made, and if, well, he has still done quite a lot, but he doesn't think so. He's like 32, the age that Alexander the Great Dies and the Caesar's

Statue of Alexander and supposedly weeps that, you know, he has done much here. So that, that

mindset is certainly there, isn't it? It's a fun question to ask. And of course, there's so many variables as to he might have been killed in a battle or died during the campaign or something or been defeated. But Hannah, how far do you think he would have aspired to go if he had gone east? I mean, India, in my opinion, probably if he was like, he would have tried to get there, but, yeah, I feel that's fair. I mean, we know from Augustus, Augustus claims that he's receiving

embassies from India, you know, which no one has received before, that his claim to that kind of world reach is that it's sort of diplomatic. But I'm sure, yeah, Caesar liked, for example, perhaps someone like Trasian, who was more successful campaigning against Asia and Parthia, was trying to push as far far east as he could go, almost perhaps in the detriment of the stability of the empire. So there's that tension between that almost innate Roman drive, that

competitive drive for military glory and no doubt that sort of personality type that drives towards military success that Caesar evidently possessed versus the need to kind of ensure stability for the state, which he was aware of because obviously he'd fought civil wars against, you know, fellow citizens, which was massively disruptive to not just the stability of Rome as a political entity, but to the entire Mediterranean. I guess that's right, isn't it? That's another fun thing

to consider, the further east he would have gone, the more potential there could have been for instability at home or even gold or somewhere, or either rivals, you know, who'd stay quiet in the Senate, or if they if there was no item much brought at the time with Cassius and the like,

“could they have risen up in Rome itself when he's so far away? Like, I think there's a”

precedent we've saw that in Marius doing the same kind of thing when sawless away in Marius and Rome. So it's funny to consider that, like, if he'd gone further and further east or gone that way, it's then more chance of instability and an uprising at Rome at the West. I absolutely, and I think Tristan that, you know, if he was to push further east, but still maintain his position of dictator perpetual, you know, sending back commentaries on his great glorious Eastern campaigns,

that's not going to dissuade, you know, those who are managing the rest of Rome, that he's not a king, that he doesn't remove the problem that initiates the odds of March, conspiracy in the

first place, right? It removes him from their presence, but we know from his Gallic Wars that

his imminent return was one of the things. The concern about what Caesar was going to do, coming back to Italy from Gaul is what drives the war between him and Pompey to start in the first place. So would we have just had another civil war when he came back from the east?

“Indeed, it starts from the right. In my office, you have to have a morality that is,”

I mean, a lot of people are fighting for their firewall. They are fighting for the right with the workers and they are the 75th of August. On the right, they are coming to the end of the day. History, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed. We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows, where Samurai warlords and Shinobi spies

Whether you're preparing for Assassin's Creed Shadows, or fascinated by history and great stories,

listen to echoes of history, a Ubisoft podcast or to you by history hits, there are new episodes every week. Last one on the military campaigns, and then I'd like to ask about his health and them all, explore some key characters as well, like of course clear patcher. You mentioned kind of conquering the whole world idea. It's a pretty big idea, a pretty big aim ambition for

Caesar, the known world. But with that, I've also meant that he would have wanted to conquer the great step north of the Black Sea as well, the land as Sivia, even more horse arches up there,

“another bane of Rome, Amazonian women fighters as well. What do we think?”

Perhaps we can look to his British campaign as an example of what you can claim to have done,

even if you haven't had necessarily done much. He crosses the great world sea of ocean. He goes to Britain on two campaigns, but Britain is not really conquered in that sort of traditional sense. He's made a kind of pact with a British king to be a tribute state, but he can claim in the act that he has sort of conquered ocean and he's gone as far as Britain. So quite what he might have done further east in terms of claims of, of reaching the limits. And what, for

example, the Romans would have considered the limits of, you know, the inhabited world. Obviously, they knew about India, they knew about China. But was that a realistic goal? Very much, that's a great point, isn't it? And he also crosses the Rhine twice, doesn't go too far, but gets tribute from nearby Germanic peoples and says, "And done it." And that again is a massive claim, you know, Cicero and his speeches in 56 makes the point that we no longer need to have the Alps as a rampart

and protection of Italy. The Rhine is not something that is defending us against the Germanic tribes. It is Caesar. Caesar is our imperium in shield. So would that rhetoric have continued yet

potentially? But again, it's always that concern about when he does return to Rome, which he would

have needed to do at some point. What would have happened with the Senate? Would it have been a repeat of, you know, 59 BC? Well, can we explore his personal health now? Because we hinted at earlier that he's not in the greatest health, actually around the time of the eyes as much. So what do we know about his health at that time? So a little bit, the sort of sources are they're not vague. I mean, Sue Tonia tells us that he had good health for most of his life, but in

the latter part of his life, that he was beginning to suffer from ill health, that he had sudden fainting fits, and apparently even nightmares, and that on two occasions, in public, when he was conducting public business, he had an epileptic fit. And again, we're told anecdotally that in one particular sort of phase of ill health near the end of his life, he was sort of had been reading xenophon and contemplating the issue of a long degenerative illness. And he's like,

that's not for me. Does xenophon's an ancient Greek writer? And does he, he talks about that, they'll see in his writings. So he's reading something in xenophon, that is obviously discussing an individual who had, you know, a drawn out illness and death, and Caesar, reportedly said, that's not for me. I'd rather be quick and sudden. And in that respect, as opposed, he got his wish, no doubt it was definitely not painless. But so this idea, though, about how

do you want your life to end? And I suppose that taps into a wider Greek, going back to sort of philosophy about life, and I'm actually thinking about the Athenian salon in Herodotus,

“going to the Persian king, curious to us. And Chris is asking him, who was the happiest man alive?”

Surely it's me, look at all my wealth. And so on says, "Cool, no man, happy or fortunate until he is dead." Because you can't judge someone's life until it's gone to the end. But for Caesar evidently, he didn't want something that was going to lessen his life achievements in terms of ill health, gradually leaking out his life. Do you think that could have easily motivated him for that path in campaign? And that military campaigning? Yes, there is one's given the threat of death,

but, you know, maybe, well, in his idea, in his mind, certainly, the kind of glorified end, potentially, if he lost his life on campaign? Could that have paid a role into it? Do you think there's probably a, actually, where it seems for what you've seen there? Caesar is contemplating the possibility that actually he won't live much longer, regardless of what happens.

“Yes, I think it's certainly a possibility, though I think we also have to caution this with,”

you know, these sources come from, from later writers who are writing, knowing what happens to Caesar,

is spent a lot of his career, very active on campaign, who considered himself a

“comrade with his soldiers, you know, not sort of someone over and above him, that perhaps it's a case”

of going out on your own terms, as much as you can, and perhaps it is a case of going out in a blaze of glory. You know, so let's say, keeping on Caesar, but let's go away from this military campaigning, and talk about his future, what we get a sense from the surviving sources, maybe from his will as well, about his future vision of Rome. Do we have any sense of how he would have governed Rome going forwards if he returned to Rome? Let's say.

Well, for all intents and purposes, before he was planning to leave for the party in campaign,

as I previously mentioned, he put a lot of legislation in place, and whilst we can sort of

reconstruct the opinion of the conspirators that he wants to be a king, looking at what he was doing practically, a lot of it seems quite sensible legislation, whether it's for a genuine desire to help people of all social statuses, or because he understands the benefit of ensuring that the people are happy, the soldiers are happy. A lot of it is quite sound administration, right? So his great legislation to ensure that there is a steady supply or food for the city of Rome,

he appoints two officials to oversee the grain supply, he has plans to sort of improve Rome's port. So there's a lot of sort of infrastructure going on, which no doubt he would have continued. Whether we can sort of look to what happens during the civil wars between Mark Antony and Octavian who have become Augustus, and what they did as a way of thinking about would Caesar have taken that path, for example. So, as is probably well known in terms of Caesar's interactions with Egypt,

it's the sort of famous encounter with Cleopatra, and allegedly the product of their union being Cleopatra's firstborn son, Tollamy Caesar, or Siserian, as the Alexanderians called him,

“a very clear nod to who she was claiming the father. Well, that means little Caesar doesn't it?”

Exactly, yes, thank you. Good not yet, yes. But for Cleopatra, this was a really good card to play, because she'd got rid of her co-reg agent and brother, Tollamy the 30. She now was co-ruling with her younger brother, but she's aiming to establish her own dynasty and having an heir, who is a Tollamy, is great, and to be able to link that to Rome, and to the leader of Rome, is added power.

Now, there's always been questions over to Therian's legitimacy. Caesar never publicly claimed

him as his own offspring at Rome, although Soitonia tells us that he did allow the boy to receive his name. So, whether that's kind of like, you know, actually like a godfather, or where, sort of say, yes, he's mine, but not an illegal Roman sense. That his own friends, including Mark Antony, said, yeah, he was Caesar's son, he looks like him, but that could also be where all this evidence is coming from is really concerning Caesar's great nephew, Octavian, who becomes

“Augustus as the legal heir of Caesar, and arguments about, is there another legal heir?”

One of Caesar's friends writes a pamphlet apologizing and saying that Caesar is not Siserian's father, but again, that's because he's trying to support Octavian. So, there's lots of questions over Siserians' legitimacy, but potentially this could have been a way for Caesar to secure relations with Egypt and to sort of consider ways of controlling the East and the Eastern kingdoms. Antony, who, as we know, becomes Cleopatra's lover after Caesar and has more children with her, twins,

boy and a girl, and then another son. In 34, when he's governing the East, after he's come back from his not successful pathion campaign and has been rescued by Cleopatra, he holds a celebration in Alexandria in Egypt, and it's referred to as the donations of Alexandria, and he effectively gifts sways of territory from Libya to Parthia to Cleopatra and her children. So, where the Caesar might have done something like that, or whether he would, or whether the him that would have been

conceding land to Egypt, and maybe he would have wanted to eat it more like the client kingdoms we spoke about earlier, these friendly kings, but to have a potential offspring who is a monarchy of Egypt might be a way of linking Rome and having a Roman stake in Egypt, which Augusta does differently because he conquers Egypt, he kills Siserian, and he creates a women province, but perhaps Caesar might have gone a different route. He might have monopolized on the fact that

sort of a text of a law that Caesar had written, that said that Caesar could marry as many women

as he wanted to have children with them. Now, again, that's probably the story from hindsight, but the idea about having offspring, having heirs, this is the area in the background, as this Roman-Tolomeic figure is quite interesting concept to play with when you're dealing with the sort of the power dynamics of the Greek East. Once again, it's quite Hellenistic, and it's look isn't it, like kind of that polygamous regal outlook, you know, potentially having more

and more airs, it's fascinating to explore all of that, because it's also the fact, doesn't it, Hannah recording to our sources, that when Caesar was assassinated, Cleopatra was in Rome at that time, flaunting her wealth, and much not being like a Roman woman should be in Cicero's eyes, but she was there, it was his area on there with her as well, aged two, aged two, so they're in Rome, and as you say, Caesar is accommodating them, but keeping them at a bit of a distance

at that time, it is fascinating to think, if he wasn't assassinated, if he comes back, after his military fighting, he's increasing his power in Rome, and, you know, the position of himself, that, yes, would he have kind of done similar to what Markancy had done? Would he become more open to Cleopatra and Césarion and showing them on the main stage with him, and,

“you know, promoting that link with Egypt? Oh, they're fascinating things to consider, isn't it?”

Yeah, absolutely, and as you say, yes, Cleopatra Césarion went in Rome when Caesar was assassinated as far as we can tell, she gets out pretty quickly, and after that, realizing that this is not a safe position, but your right Caesar did host Cleopatra and her brother, Tolami, the 14th, in his house at the Tiber, Cicero does not like Cleopatra one bit, but officially they're there to be recognized as friends and allies of the Roman peoples, so there is this official umbrella

over which Caesar is hosting them in Rome, and as you say, there's not much evidence that anything was really going on between them apart from a head of state hosting another head of state, but it certainly is enough to get tongue's wagging. Do you think there could have been any likelihood that Caesar would have done, like, kind of, would have become the Markancy instead, that he could, but, you know, if he was going east, that maybe takes Cleopatra with him,

if he was going east, and then looking at Alexandria and thinking about that going forward,

“so is he very different in his character? I think you're right to sort of think about”

similarities to Markancy, but absolutely the difference is. I mean, on a very sort of trivial way, you know, Markancy News is infamously a drunkard, according to Cicero, whereas Caesar is almost a T-totaler. He doesn't really drink at all in moderation, so I think Caesar's got this whole thing going about control, and perhaps self-restraint in certain respects, not when it comes to sex, but when it comes to other sort of potential vices, Markancy doesn't seem to have that, and of

course we're looking at these through the sources that Markancy suffers from being the opponent of Augustus, and all the rhetoric can propaganda against him. But I think Caesar himself, in his civil war commentary, mentions Cleopatra very briefly, but it's in a very official capacity that she and her brother are the monarchs of Egypt and he has to sort out a dispute between them. There's no indication, as we probably wouldn't expect from an official correspondence or account,

that there's anything going on between them. He seems to be far more remote and distant to their relationship. Apart from when it supposedly happens, compared to Markancy, but that could just be because, you know, Markancy has a much more protracted time with her. He's out in the east, and he's trying to deal with the organization of the east, and someone like Cleopatra, who is the queen of Egypt, who has a massive amount of wealth and

resources, is a really crucial ally. We tend to think about Markancy and Cleopatra

romantically, but it's much political, as anything else, for both them. Go back to that political side then. And do you think there was any chance that Julius Caesar on the trajectory that he was going, that he would have got so bold enough, as to have ultimately taken the title of Rex, or to have made himself emperor.

“It's one of those big questions, you know, what are your questions?”

But it's a great one to think about, isn't it? Well, we go back to the Luba Calia, and this sort of offering of kingship and his refusal, it feels very performative. It feels like his test in the waters would people accept me. And even though he, you know,

he never sort of becomes king, this idea of being dictated of a pet you owe,

dictator without interruption. It's interesting to think about that in relation to the one

who was dictator at the end of the 80s after sort of a decade of civil war. But Silla,

he puts lots of legislation in place to nominally restore the state. Silla retires. He goes, "Right, jobs done. I'm going to retire to my villa in the countryside. You can all handle this." Supposedly, Silla says that Silla didn't have a good political education because he gave up the dictator ship. He's saying Silla made a big mistake in putting that to one side. This statement comes from a Pompeian, a supporter of Pompey. So we have to take it with a

pinch of salt. These are the statements that Silla apparently made. Along with the Republic is nothing. It's just a name. It has no substance or form that mentioned, you know, listen to my opinion, and they should treat my word as law. These sayings which sort of are framing him above the state in some way that he's constantly wanting to hold on to power. And as opposed to we see that in the civil wars, the whole conflict between him and Pompey is, you know, not wanting to give up

power, not wanting to give up an army. And the further he goes in at path, the harder it becomes,

“to put it all to one side, just to become a private citizen. I think, you know, the further into it”

you go, you can't really for a number of reasons. And also the fact that, you know, his Senate, all the people around him, you know, presumably let's say, let's imagine the Mark Hansen, he's still very much backing him, all those senators still backing him. All those kind of lackey

voices in his ears that have been giving him all of the honours, basically kind of a king and all

but named by that point is, you know, as formidable as Caesar was, I'm sure he wasn't someone who was also a luke or unreceiving of praise and being lorded all the time, how that could have affected him. Yes, but I suppose, you know, kings can be killed as easily as dictators. Well, this is the thing, because I remember talking to Dr. Stillbrand about this, who does a lot about kind of the Republican mindset. And if let's say those would be conspirators would have been

still around, you know, Cassius Brutus. Basically, do we think that, you know, Caesar trying to get to the rect to the emperor, even after the hardships that Romans faced and people wanting stability, that at that time, there would have still been enough of the old guard as it were, enough people who remember the time of the Roman Republic who wants to get back to it, that they would have been able to form strong enough opposition. Like, you know, you see, I'll speak with

the wars following Caesar's death. Then actually, if Caesar dared make that gap, make that jump, you know, any time later, if he hadn't survived the odds of March, people still had memories of

the Republic before and there would always be strong opposition that could have brought him down,

maybe compare to Octavian later, who there's less of that around anymore.

“No, I think that's right, Tristan. Cicero writing a letter to a personal friend of Caesar a couple of months”

after the odds of March, you know, says, look, if Caesar was a king, if he was rex, as I think he was, and he can say that now that Caesar's dead, if that's the case, we should always prefer the liberty of the Republic over the life of a personal friend. And I think you're right that when Caesar is in power, there is still enough of a Republic or figures who want to see the Republic functioning in a certain way, even if Caesar thought that wasn't possible to resist,

whereas as we move into the next decade and the fallout from Caesar's assassination, which creates a very competitive environment, is only through the course of the civil wars between Mark Antony and Octavian that there's no one left to challenge the man who had become Augustus to soulpower. So it's a kind of timing thing, it's the loss of those people who did have an idea of the Republic, Tassitas, who is an imperial historian writing and attration, says that when Augustus

“is in power, there was no one left who could remember what the Republic was, and that's perhaps”

makes it easier for him compared to what Caesar was facing. Land of Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt and avoid the poisonous cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on echoes of history, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed. We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, chasing shadows, where samurai warlords and Shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed

not only to survive, but to conquer. Whether you're preparing for Assassin's Creed shadows or fascinated by history and great stories, listen to echoes of history, a Ubisoft podcast bought to you by history hits, there are new episodes every week.

hypothetical before we completely wrap up, and that is of course a figure who we've covered together on the podcast before Octavian, young Caesar, the future Augustus that you've mentioned already, now he is someone that makes the most of Caesar's death to advance his own career,

ultimately is kind of the projected kind of air of Caesar. If Caesar hadn't been

assassinated and he does return to Roman lives a bit longer, stays in power. What do you think would have happened to this young Octavian? Do you think Caesar still had a big plans for him? Very good question. You're absolutely right that young Octavian catapults his career of the back of Caesar's assassination and his position as the primary air. We know from the sources, although it is limited that he was evidently being trained by Caesar as a young male relative

would be to develop a political and military career. He joined Caesar in Spain in 45, not necessarily doing much because he was ill, but there are sort of hints of preparing him for perhaps a traditional elite Roman male life, military experience perhaps he would have taken up a more

“conventional political career. We had to remember that when Caesar was assassinated he was out”

in Appalonia, so modern-day Albania studying. He was being trained in rhetoric as he would expect, so he could come back to Rome and have that career in the law, in politics and speaking. But it's also worth remembering that he was named as Caesar's primary air in his will, when that will was read after the assassination. Caesar might have made a different will later in life if he'd survive, but if that will say it in place, he was going to be Caesar's air. That

doesn't mean that he would necessarily succeed Caesar politically, but that legally he takes hold up his estate, his money, his clients, so that would potentially put him in a position of power if Caesar had reached such a pitch of power within the state that, you know, who's coming after him, was still going to be a question. That's succession crisis, even if he's not, you know, a king, he doesn't make that leap. If that's a clear pattern in Caesar,

you're going to become a bit more prominent, if he does marry other women as well, non-Roman women, and like, and I have some more children, and like, could there have been, like, a fight off between like young Caesarian and Octavian the future, maybe several other potential contenders, another funny one to consider. That's exactly it. Yeah, I mean, an anecdote from when Octavian was deciding the fate of cesarean was an Alexandrian philosopher,

Erisius, says to him, he says, too many Caesar's is not a good thing. You don't want too many people with the name Caesar, that's going to cause exactly those issues that you mentioned,

“Tristan. So, yeah, I think that could have led to continued conflict as to who is the”

eras Caesar, who's going to step into his shoes. So, it doesn't sort of solve the problems that we've been tracking really. It just increases them. Which doesn't matter what might have happened to Caesar, whether he was assassinated, or if he wasn't, there may well have been problems

after his death. It's interesting how those titanic figures, you know, can always, you know,

whatever happens, and can cause problems following their demise. I mean, absolutely fantastic. One last scenario I want to put to you in this story is we kind of approached it first and foremost, as if the eyes of March plot never happened, like they missed their moment, and then Caesar goes away, but those figures are still kind of in the background a bit. But what if it was slightly different? What if let's say, let's imagine that the assassins had tried, they'd planned it out,

the plot on the eyes of March, you know, Caesar was on his way to the Senate House, but something goes terribly wrong, and the plot is tossed out. Caesar gets word. His, his lackeys surround the conspirators, and they're all rounded up, and the plot fails. What do you think would have

“happened next? How would Caesar have dealt, you know, with these people he thought were his friends?”

This is another great question. Caesar is well known for his clemency. It's how he treated his opponents in the civil war. So he forgave them. And then he was one, and Brutus. Absolutely. Yes, and Brutus, Kato famously, you know, killed himself rather than having to experience the clemency of Caesar. So that's one way to approach it. Would you have treated them the same way as he treated civil war opponents? It's interesting that in Sua Tonya's account, he, he, he, give us a quote from

Caesar, not sort of the famous one, Ectubreutei, Kaisu Teknon, but in Latin, apparently he said,

when the first blow was struck, this is violence indeed. This is this. Now, this in Latin is

criminal physical violence against someone. And there is Roman law against violence, both private

So I wonder whether they could have been charged in legal law courts under a charge of public political

“violence. And if I'm guilty, the traditional punishment is exile. Oh, okay. The traditional”

punishment is being forbidden water off fire. Oh, okay. But it, it's exile. We might also reflect on how Caesar himself approached 20 years earlier, the treatment of the Catalanarian conspirators. So this was when Cicero was console. Cateline allegedly tried to overthrow the state, and some of his associates were captured. These were elite members of the Senate. And they weren't put on trial, but their case was discussed in the Senate. And Cicero, along with a number

of other senators wanted to put them, the death wanted to execute them. Caesar takes a different approach. Caesar's approach is there are laws in place that protect the life of Roman citizens. And you cannot injure a Roman citizen and you cannot execute them without trial before the people. So whether you know, quite how he would have approached, this is, you know, it's, this is different, though, if this personal attack against him as a public figure, but also his friends,

“would he have reacted in quite the same way as he had done 20 years previously and said,”

"Ah, they must down trial before the people, but perhaps the people that they had to do trial would have been outraged at this attack against Caesar." Well, exactly. Yes, they, the Mark Antony and whoever could very much roll them up, can they, that given that, that popular support Caesar has, you know, them,

yeah, it's amazing to consider isn't it? Or whether they do go somewhere,

going to exile and join that other labianis you mentioned earlier in Parthia. And then you got this big group of conspirators. You know, in the court of the Parthia, yes, exile was perhaps legally a sound and moral option, much of created issues, although they wouldn't have had the same manpower that they did in the subsequent wars, because Brutus and Cassius had been made preters by Caesar, they had raised armies in the east, but yes, it could have

continued the issues by not ensuring that they were completely gone rid of. Well, Hannah, this has been so much fun and with hypothetical scenarios, we could talk about so many other themes, so many other figures say, what could have happened to them with the Brutuses or Mark Antony and so on and so forth, but we won't delve into that. We'll leave it for you. Our listeners have a think about like, is there anything else that you'd want to consider with the

story of Caesar and what might have happened? And do you have any thoughts around it? We'd love to hear from you about it. Hannah, before we go, one last thing, anything else you'd like to mention about the hides of March and you know, theorizing if he hadn't been assassinated, that's

always fascinated you. Have you had sleepless nights around? I think we've covered it all, I have to

say, I think it's just, it's one of those events that really kind of captures our imagination, not just because of the stories that are told about it by the ancient authors, but also Caesar, it's just got so much around it. And it's one of those crux moments, little bit like the crossing of the Rubicon and the what if narrative you can construct have infinite possibilities, which I think

“a really fun way of exploring the past, because you have to sort of think about it within its context,”

which requires thinking about what actually happened. But then, as I say, all the possibilities of what might have happened and it could have been different. Exactly. The great thing about doing hypothetical episodes like this is, you say, is you have to construct an argument, you know, you have to say, why you believe this could have happened and you have to use the evidence available to put forward a plausible theory behind it. So yes, it's very much kind of working the brain.

Exactly. That's a great way to put it. I must admit, I think about Shakespeare of all people. If it hadn't been the eyes of March, would you have still found a great story from Julius Caesar to tell, you know, which is endured, but who knows? I feel that's a story for another day. That absolutely is. Hannah, this has been absolutely fantastic. It just goes to me to say, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast. Thank you for having me.

Well, there you go. There was the fantastic Doctor Hannah Cornwell for this fun episode, exploring what might have happened if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated on the 15th of March,

44 BC, the Isle of March. The first time we've really done one of these, what if episodes these

hypothetical episodes are we'd love to hear what you thought of it? Thank you so much for listening. Now, last things from me, if you have been enjoying the ancients recently, then make sure that you are following the show on either Spotify or wherever you get to your podcast. If you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, where we'd really appreciate that. Don't forget, you can also subscribe to History Hit for hundreds of hours of history documentaries

with new releases every week. Sign up at historyhit.com/subscribe. That's all from me. I'll see you in the next episode.