What if Pompey had defeated Caesar?

[tagos]

@rivulus

What if Pompey had won and Cleopatra had herself delivered to him in a carpet? As partners, would she have had the political acumen to help him consolidate power?

I don’t imagine she had any role to play. Not in Caesar’s career or Pompey’s.

I’m not a great believer in the old Great Man Theory of History, although JC is as close as you can get. The Roman Republic was doomed. Had been since before Sulla. All of the last century of its life was at least three intertwining battles

Between the Great Families in their quest for rank and prestige (which drove public life) which by definition required the cutting down of any who would take all glory for themselves.

Between Rome and the Italians over extending citizenship

Between the Senate and the ever-swelling economically redundant (because of slavery) mob.

The Marian reforms made the legions the inevitable tool (and later, puppet-master) of those who paid them.

In the face of these titanic forces individuals play out roles or fill niches. Civil War was inevitable as the Republican political system wasn’t able to address the issues.

If Pompey had won the Civil War he and his legions would be in control and it would have been his dynasty that provided the first Emperors. Roman history might have differed in detail following that but it would have followed the same general trajectory.

I’d like a Time Machine to go prevent JC’s killing just to see if see would have gone after Parthia though.

[tagos]

@Little_Nemo

You had a system in which people were supposed to be limited by a self-imposed sense of restraint and duty with minimal external checks. Such a system will inevitably give way to those indviduals who choose not to restrain themselves. And every time one individual defied a tradition it weakened the strenght of that tradition’s hold over other ambitious individuals.

And once said mavericks had in effect, their own private armies …

[wintertime]

@Little_Nemo

The Roman Republican government was based on traditions. It worked when everyone did what they were supposed to. Its vulnerability was that people could advance themselves by defying tradition and simply doing what was advantageous to them. (…)

You had a system in which people were supposed to be limited by a self-imposed sense of restraint and duty with minimal external checks. Such a system will inevitably give way to those indviduals who choose not to restrain themselves. And every time one individual defied a tradition it weakened the strenght of that tradition’s hold over other ambitious individuals.

I think, you trust Cicero too much; the reality of the mos maiorum becomes more apparent in Plautus’ parodies, especially in the Trinummus. Megaronides’ introductory complaints unveil a more general moral decline within the nobiles; Philto calls them hiulca gens and the grief of the slave(!) Stasimus is as funny as illuminating:

He praises the mores veteres (or maiorum) of the past but condemns the mos of his presence, which indicates that the nobiles of Plautus’ time used the principle of mos maiorum to legitimate their supremacy for purely selfish interests.

Plautus wasn’t so stupid to attack the Senate directly, of course, but I think his comedies show that he thought the nobiles exploited the state and had already corrupted the very idea of the mos maiorum - a century before Caesar’s time.

Sure, Plautus was a playwright, he created fiction but we know that comedies, specifically parodies, have to tell a truth to work; and quite often, comedies are the best way to express criticism when dealing with the mighty and powerful (and the only way when you are not one of them).

The republic was rotten long before Caesar smothered it. But I still don’t see any reason why it couldn’t have lasted a couple of decades longer if Pompey had won decisively and early enough to retain control over the provinces.

In view of the Roman atrocities and destructive furor (to name just Caesar in Gaul or Trajan in his Dacian Wars), I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if the Romans had self-destructed much earlier than they did.

[Caffeine.addict]

I’m not an expert but it seems to me that the system was broken. You had armies that had to rely on their generals to support their land grants, i.e. their retirement, against the Senate which meant that their loyalty was unquestionably to their commanders against the Senate. The rival factions would stop at nothing to crush their opposition, which meant that if a peaceful accomodation couldn’t be arrived at, then war was inevitable.

The Republic was pretty much over by the Civil War between the Marius and Sulla. Sulla’s reforms may have bought the Senate some time, but the fall of the Republic seems inevitable.

[BrainGlutton]

Does anyone think it played a significant role in the Republic’s decline and fall, that it failed to adapt itself in terms of scale? Its constitution was devised for a city-state that controlled only Latium, and it was modified only in fits and starts over the centuries, adding a new office or institution in response to a political crisis, but never throwing anything away, nor systematically revising the system at any point (unless Sulla’s reforms count, and he was mainly concerned with preserving aristocratic privileges). In modern states the capital city has its own mayor and council whose authority does not extend beyond the capital, but in Rome there was never any constitutional distinction (though there was some practical distinction) between the government of the city of Rome and the government of the Republic as a whole. Italians were granted citizenship after the Social War – but they still could only participate in the elections if they could actually travel to Rome for the voting. The concepts of federal government and representative democracy, which have made it possible for the United States to thrive as (one of my college polysci profs emphasized) the first big republic in human history, seem simply never to have occurred to the Romans.

[wintertime]

@BrainGlutton

(…) The concepts of federal government and representative democracy, which have made it possible for the United States to thrive as (one of my college polysci profs emphasized) the first big republic in human history, seem simply never to have occurred to the Romans.

I am pretty sure, I misunderstand what you say … the Roman Republic lasted for 450 years, the United States won’t catch up with it for a very long time – what do I miss?

[Lemur866]

@tagos

If Pompey had won the Civil War he and his legions would be in control and it would have been his dynasty that provided the first Emperors. Roman history might have differed in detail following that but it would have followed the same general trajectory.

I disagree that Pompey could have been the first “emperor”. He would have been the First Man in Rome for a while, and then there would have been another round of civil wars after he died or lost his grip. He would have been an autocrat, but not a reformer. And another general who had no idea how to actually rule would become First Man in Rome, then another and another until the empire broke apart.

It was Octavian who created the idea of the Emperor. Only someone with his political and administrative skills could have enforced decades of peace and prosperity such that after Octavian’s death the only question was who would fulfill Octavian’s role. Octavian seems to me unique. History is full of examples of interchangeable strong men and conquering generals, and it doesn’t matter much who they were or what they conquered. But Octavian was different. His importance wasn’t that he won this or that battle or conquered this or that town. Instead he recreated Roman institutions to such a degree that the former Republic could now operate indefinitely even when the supposed First Man in Rome just sat around on Capri molesting little boys, or sleeping with his sister, or what have you.

Without Octavian to recreate Roman institutions, there would be no Emperorhood for future Emperors to step into. And Roman would have torn itself to bits like the dozens of other short-lived empires that lasted for a few generations and then faded into nothingness.

[Sailboat]

@Lemur866

And Roman would have torn itself to bits like the dozens of other short-lived empires that lasted for a few generations and then faded into nothingness.

Except that Rome had been established for a long, long time before Octavian came along.

[Little_Nemo]

Sulla’s reforms may have bought the Senate some time, but the fall of the Republic seems inevitable.

unless Sulla’s reforms count, and he was mainly concerned with preserving aristocratic privileges

I’ll give Sulla credit and assume he was sincere. (His voluntary abdication defends that view.) But he was still wrong. It may have been his intent to preserve Roman tradition but his actions hastened their demise. He thought he could use dictatorial means to preserve the Republic. But latter Romans would look to his example and be inspired more by his deeds than his words. They would use Sulla’s dictatorial means to destroy the Republic.

[Lemur866]

@Sailboat

Except that Rome had been established for a long, long time before Octavian came along.

But it wasn’t a gigantic empire for that long. Until the Romans defeated Carthage and the Greeks in 146 BC, they were merely a strong regional power. Then suddenly they controlled most of the Mediterranean. A 100-150 year Roman empire that only lightly controlled most of its possessions is a far different thing than a 500 year western empire and a 1500 year eastern empire.

[BrainGlutton]

@wintertime

I am pretty sure, I misunderstand what you say … the Roman Republic lasted for 450 years, the United States won’t catch up with it for a very long time – what do I miss?

But, the bigger it grew beyond Latium, the less democratic it became, in terms of all its citizens (excluding slaves and subject peoples) effectively participating in government. And it never effectively grew beyond Italy (provincials did not participate at all), and Italy is not very big by comparison to the U.S. even at the time of independence.

[Tenebras]

@wintertime

There was, however, at least one alternative to Pompey: Cicero. His two major blunders have damaged his image as a political leader in posterity; but in our scenario, the first one wouldn’t have been considered a blunder, because this time, he chose the winning side – and his second blunder during his campaign against Marc Anthony wouldn’t have happened at all.

I think that Cicero’s involvement with the Catilinarian conspiracy would have prevented him from taking control of the Republic in the way you describe. Executing senators without trial doesn’t endear you to the senatorial class.

Of course, after his exile Cicero reformed his reputation, and was eventually vindicated by history, but I don’t think that he could be the kind of driving force that you describe. I do believe that he would have made an excellent advisor, however, to whomever did end up in control. Sort of like Seneca, but with principles.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

But, the bigger it grew beyond Latium, the less democratic it became, in terms of all its citizens (excluding slaves and subject peoples) effectively participating in government.

The thing is, the Roman Republic wasn’t democratic at all. For the first two centuries of the republic, only patricians had any say, and even after the plebeians fought for and got rights, the only plebeians who had any power were a few “new noble” plebeian families. The Roman Republic was always an oligarchic aristocracy/plutocracy maintained by a network of patronage. So really, for all of its history, most of the citizens of the Roman republic never participated in government.

[wintertime]

@BrainGlutton

But, the bigger it grew beyond Latium, the less democratic it became, in terms of all its citizens (excluding slaves and subject peoples) effectively participating in government.

As Captain Amazing said, Rome was never governed democratically but it still was, for a very long time, a republic; two concepts that are not interchangeable.

@BrainGlutton

And it never effectively grew beyond Italy (provincials did not participate at all), and Italy is not very big by comparison to the U.S. even at the time of independence.

The provinces did participate but not in the sense you’d expect in a modern democracy.
And a comparison of sizes isn’t conclusive if you ignore the different levels of science, technology and knowledge two civilizations have on hand. We have outdone Rome even when it comes to their great achievements, like their road network, but we did so with modern machinery.

@Tenebras

I think that Cicero’s involvement with the Catilinarian conspiracy would have prevented him from taking control of the Republic in the way you describe. Executing senators without trial doesn’t endear you to the senatorial class.

But, Tenebras, that happened before the civil war; if Pompej had won*, he would have been the triumphator of the war, but there is little doubt that he didn’t have the political skills to restore the Roman Republic.

Cicero, otoh, had the skills, his support of Pompej, i.e. the republic, would have restored his standing among his equals … and I don’t see anyone left who was as able as he was.

Octavian was too young and he wouldn’t have had the support of a victorious uncle.

Besides, the Second Triumvirate (since 43 B.C.) turned out to be anything but shy in getting rid of (potential) enemies and rivals; IIRC, more than 100 *senatores *and around 2,000 knights fell victim to the proskriptiones – and the Senate kowtowed, and that was before Philippi. Civil war changes things.

@Tenebras

I do believe that he would have made an excellent advisor, however, to whomever did end up in control. Sort of like Seneca, but with principles.

Don’t get me wrong, I do agree, he was far more suited for such a role than the one I described; but he was less unfit to restore the republic than all the other candidates left (as far as we know, of course).

He was the one prominent figure who could have stabilized Roman society; but, otoh, he was probably not the man to immunize the republic against dictatorial or imperial ambitions.

There was still Octavian with his ambitions and intelligence and skills; he could have made his way to the top even without Caesar’s support, Cicero might even have become his mentor – and might still be known as a failure, in the end.

We’ll never know.

---

• Caesar was almost done when he attacked at Dyrrhachium, Pompej had the upper hand for months but didn’t use the advantage and had to be forced to confront his rival. And even at Pharsalus, Caesar was close to disaster.

[tagos]

@Captain_Amazing

The thing is, the Roman Republic wasn’t democratic at all. For the first two centuries of the republic, only patricians had any say, and even after the plebeians fought for and got rights, the only plebeians who had any power were a few “new noble” plebeian families. The Roman Republic was always an oligarchic aristocracy/plutocracy maintained by a network of patronage. So really, for all of its history, most of the citizens of the Roman republic never participated in government.

Quite. Many might be eligible to vote but the electoral systems for the various offices were set up so that the votes of the poor were worth little because the votes of the rich were worth so much. Elections could be in fact over before the huge ‘poor’ tribes even got to cast a vote.

Rome feared Kings and they feared the Mob and the ramshackle institutions of the Republic reflected that so well it could not adapt quickly enough to new circumstances.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain_Amazing

The thing is, the Roman Republic wasn’t democratic at all. For the first two centuries of the republic, only patricians had any say, and even after the plebeians fought for and got rights, the only plebeians who had any power were a few “new noble” plebeian families. The Roman Republic was always an oligarchic aristocracy/plutocracy maintained by a network of patronage. So really, for all of its history, most of the citizens of the Roman republic never participated in government.

Not exactly. From the beginning it was an aristocratic republic with democratic elements. All magistrates were elected, and all legislation enacted, by one of several forms of popular assemblies. This was direct democracy (for those who in practice could come to Rome for the voting) – but, unlike the citizens’ assembly in Athens, a voter’s vote could never be credited directly to his wants; e.g., in the tribal assembly you voted by tribe and the wealther citizens’ tribes were smaller and cast a vote of equal weight with a larger tribe. And during most periods the assemblies could not propose their own legislation, but only vote up or down on bills presented by the Senate and/or the Tribunes of the Plebs.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s a chart showing the relations, powers and functions of the various councils, assemblies and magistrates of the Roman Republic. (And we think American government is complicated!)

[BrainGlutton]

Senators, BTW, were not elected but “conscripted” (another name for the Senate was the “Conscript Fathers”) by methods that varied over the centuries of the Republic. Originally the consuls appointed new senators. Later the power to appoint – and expel – senators was given to the censors. By the late Republic anyone was a viable candidate who had the right ancestry (either patrician or plebeian nobility – you were a plebeian noble if any of your family had ever been consul), was over 30 years of age (“Senate” comes from senex, “old man”), and met the property qualification of a million sesterces (that is, a million sesterces’ worth of land – senators were supposed to be landed gentry, and apart from selling the produce of their land were not allowed to participate in trade, though many circumvented that through front-men). After Sulla’s reforms, to become a senator you had to be elected quaestor (the lowest elected magistracy). Once in, you were a senator for life, unless a censor expelled you for immoral or illegal behavior, or for dropping below the required net worth, or for engaging in commerce and getting caught at it.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Not exactly. From the beginning it was an aristocratic republic with democratic elements. All magistrates were elected, and all legislation enacted, by one of several forms of popular assemblies.

Yes, but the assemblies weren’t actually democratic. Like your Wikipedia cite says:

The Curiate Assembly was organized as an Assembly, and not as a Council even though only patricians were members. During these first decades, the People of Rome were organized into thirty units called Curiae. The Curiae were ethnic in nature, and thus were organized on the basis of the early Roman family, or, more specifically, on the basis of the thirty original Patrician (aristocratic) clans.

Under the Servian Organization, the [centuriate] assembly was so aristocratic that the officer class and the first class of enlisted soldiers controlled enough Centuries for an outright majority.

The only government body that did have anything like equality to it was, like you said, the Tribal Assembly. But since, like you said, the tribes were of different sizes, and even more so, because the Tribal Assembly took place in Rome and was at least an all day affair, the only people who could participate were those people who could afford to go to Rome and spend a at least a day not working.

[Little_Nemo]

Here’s a chart showing the relations, powers and functions of the various councils, assemblies and magistrates of the Roman Republic. (And we think American government is complicated!)

One point that chart misses is that the Senate couldn’t legislate. It was technically an advisory body. It could only issue suggestions which then might be enacted into actual law by the Comitia Centuriata, the Comitia Tributa, or the Concilium Plebis. (The most common body used to enact laws was the Concilium Plebis because they controlled the Tribunes, who could veto any law. So a law enacted by one of the Comitias might face an immediate veto if it didn’t have the support of the Concilium.)

As a matter of tradition, somebody who had a legal proposal was expected to take it to a Senator and have him introduce it to the Senate. If the Senate approved it, they would then issue a recommendation that one of the other assemblies enact a law. But there was no actual constitutional requirement for a law to have Senate approval - it was just the custom of the ancestors.