The Ancients - What if the Ides of March Failed?

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

What if Julius Caesar had survived the Ides of March? This episode explores his last known plans — vast eastern campaigns, sweeping reforms, and his visions for Rome’s future. Could he have rivalled Alexander the Great, crowned himself king, or reshaped the Republic forever? Discover history’s greatest “what if.”MOREThe Rise of Julius CaesarListen on AppleListen on SpotifyCleopatraListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editor is Tim Arstall. The producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast. Sign up to History Hit to watch the new documentary RISE OF CAESAR; and see Adrian Goldsworthy, Dr. Simon Elliott, and Dr. Hannah Cornwell, Tristan Hughes, peel back the layers of the man, the myth, and the massive political ego that transformed the Western world forever.As well as hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Tudorburg Forest? What secrets lie buried in prehistoric Ireland? 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 slash 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 aides 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 Iides of March. Julius Caesar, dictator of Rome, 55 years, 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. Hundreds 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 omens supposedly had not been good.

Before he had even left his house, his wife Calpurnia begs him not to go, fearing a plot. Then on route, he spots a soothsayer who had already told him to beware this day. Caesar had cast aside both these warnings and several more. Undeterred, he enters the meeting room, where hundreds of senators away. him, dozens of conspirators in their midst. Concerned 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 blow after violent frenzied blow, staining Caesar's purple rose. blood or red. 23 stab wounds later, Caesar collapses, unable to speak, near the statue of Pompey, and breathes his last. His great ambitions and life cut short.

That was the famous or infamous end of Julius Caesar, an assassination that would prove the death-nail for the Roman Republic. But what if he had survived the Iids? What 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 alternate 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. It's great to be back and to talk about someone who 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, you know, one of those big moments.

What if the Iads of March hadn't happened? No, absolutely. And the Ides of March has such currency, I think, even for us today. I think most listeners, if not all, will have probably heard, beware the Iads 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, Cicero, about 11 months after Caesar had been killed, wrote a letter to Cassius, one of the assassins or liberators, saying, I wish you would have invited me to that banquet on the Iides of March.

There would have been nothing left. You know, Cicero 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 Cicero hadn't been invited. He hadn't known about the plan to assassinate Julius Caesar on the Iads of March. But 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 freedman's cap. So he's saying this was an act of tyrannicide to liberate the Republic. It's interesting there. 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 Cicero calls it a banquet. I'm guessing that's just colourful language for the multiple stabbing of Caesar in the room near the Senate House.

Yes, he's imagining it as this sort of almost not quite a party, but something that was a sort of a moment to be celebrated and almost enjoyed, which is a very macabre way of thinking about it. Because you're absolutely right, what happens on the Ides 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 Senate was summoned to a meeting before Caesar was going to depart on a planned 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 Marcius, which is the floodplain next to the Tiber,

a monumental complex with a theatre, a temple to Venus Victrix, Venus the Victor, and conveniently a meeting place for the Senate so he could meet the Senate outside of the city proper. And this is where the Senate meet on the 15th of March. March, which then becomes sort of almost portentous that when Caesar is assassinated and dies, he falls at the foot of a statue of Pompey, his great rival. So those are some of the key events, isn't it?

Because the actual story, if it was right that we start with actually explaining what happened on the Iids of March, doesn't it? Because the tale of Caesar's assassination, I think there are 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 in one of the accounts there's the sousercercer saying,

beware the eyes of march. Indeed. He said that earlier, hasn't he? He sees the soups there again supposedly on the day, and Caesar says, look, the eyes of march are here. I'm still alive. Ha, ha, ha, ha. But according to, I think that's in the later Roman biographer,

a Suetonius. And then the soothsayers supposedly cleverly replies, snarkly replies, yeah, but they're not over yet, bud, I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. Exactly. And Suetonius, alongside recording the account of the soothsayer, also talks about Caesar's wife, Calpurnia 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 portents 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, Marcius. 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 life.

Which is interesting, very interesting in its own, right? Indeed, 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 the Kural 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 Suetonius tells us that there were 23 stab wounds on his body. But only one apparently according to the doctor who subsequently examined him was was fatal. It just took one blow, though. Isn't it? Yes. And it's also, I always find

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 in the larger 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 his supporters. He had them lined up for magistracies and public positions in the coming years. But yes, it's only a fraction. It's a minority of the Senate that we know were involved. As I mentioned earlier, Cicero himself, who 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, 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, looting it over everyone else. You always

have two consuls, even though they alternate the months that they're sort of overseeing affairs. So Mark Anthony 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 perpetuo. Now this 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 realize 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 consuls, but you wanted one individual normally in a military capacity to take charge of things with a second in command, and then they would 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 we get to sort of 46 extended to 10 years. And now, who knows when he'll give back Rome to the to the Roman people and to the Senate. And alongside that, like, kind of dictator, Perpetro, a title, he also has lots of other honours as well, doesn't he? I remember talking to Dr. Emma Southern 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 consul or 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 honour him in a variety of ways. It's also worth remembering he is Pontifax 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 the 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 triumphator, and normally the triumph is one day. He's supposedly given a cult, kind of made a not a living god per se, but they appoint a priest, who's Mark Anthony allegedly, to oversee the cult to him. He's given a 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 since the time of the kings almost

because it almost feels with that cult-like portrayal, I might think of those great kingdoms in Greece and Egypt, the Ptolemies and so on, like that kind of divine ruler cults, but as you say, not quite divine. But almost that name king, it feels like Caesar is edging towards being a king in all but name. Well, yes, there's the famous event that happened. a month before his assassination, which is the Roman festival of the Lupacal, the Lupicalia, 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 wreath, but within that is placed the diadem, which is a mark

of kingship, particularly Hellenistic kingship that you just spoke of, Tristan. And so first it's laid at his feet 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 the director of the Luper Carl Festival and that's about young men running through the streets. But he places the crown on Caesar's head. Caesar again refuses. He 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 Marcius Rex. So he's saying, 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 the triumphal 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 Lupacalia festival sounds absolutely bizarre, like naked men running through the street,

Mark Anthony pulling out a crown from somewhere, or Laura Reeve from somewhere even. But of course, this is a few years after he's done his campaigns in Gould, he's done the civil wars, hasn't he? So all of his former opponents like Cato, Pompey, 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, isn't he? With 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've already mentioned, as you pointed out, Tristan, that those involved in the assassination are a really small minority and that Caesar has enlarged the Senate 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 principert, 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 we 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 in the last few years of his life. He increases the number of magistrates, 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 estates were left the people of Rome. So 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 on one of his statues, saying Brutus was made consul first, and this is referring to the first consul of the Roman Republic, Lucius Junius Brutus in 509, who got rid of the kings.

So it says Brutus was made consul first since he threw out the kings. He, i.e. Caesar, since he's thrown out the consuls, eventually gets to be king. And on the statue of Brutus is also a grafito which says, if only you are living. So there's a sense about is the Republic 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 Suetonius and imperial biographer loves gossip, love scandal. But it's interesting that supposedly it has come down to him in the historic record that there 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 Lupacé, 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. But this is all really important for getting a good sense of Caesar's position around the time of the Iads of March. And Hannah, we do know what he was planning next.

So what is Caesar's situation around, well, let's say mid-March, 44 BC. What is he aiming to do? So he is aiming on the 18th of March to leave Rome and to march east. Three days later, right. Yeah, 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 Parthia. Now Parthia 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 have never successfully conquered. It was a goal of Pompey the Great to sort of wrap up his sort of imperial world conquest by conquering Parthia, but he never did.

And Rome had suffered previous defeats and setbacks, so particularly under Crassus in 54 and 53, devastating defeat by the Parthians. Rome's concern about its eastern frontiers, if we can talk about that or its eastern provinces from the possibility of a Parthian threat, plus Caesar's desire to be that world conqueror to do one better than Pompey and other great generals of the past is driving him towards his Parthian campaign. And we know that this was meant to be a three-year campaign.

Legions 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 magistracies 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 sort of say, yes, we'll be senior 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 the 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 the big man, but he's going back on his expeditions to the east. And a couple of things from what you mentioned there, so Parthia, Euphrates River.

So think ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq and Iran, Macedonia as well, so it could have northern 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, Hannah? So there are sources that talk about what Caesar have been planning to do on this expedition, which will delve into. But I think first and foremost, does this also emphasize the urgency of those conspirators that they had to take him out on the eyes? 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 this 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 marches as he would be overseeing them as consul 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'd proven pretty resilient and an excellent general to date.

Yes, the Parthians had been a particular threat and had killed Krasis and large numbers of the Roman army, but they evidently did not want to take that risk. The Ides 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 consuls used to enter office. So potentially it has this idea of reinforcing the annual magistrates of the Roman state. We have consuls 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? let's envisage that they didn't take the moment for whatever reason and actually that they never even tried to assassinate Caesar, they miss the boat. So those figures, let's 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 sometimes, well, maybe myself personally a bit too much,

love to delve into military campaigns. We're not going to bore you, Hannah, or any of our audience with But do we get a sense from any surviving sources as to how Caesar wanted to conduct this campaign about the Parthians, how he wanted to go east? So some of our sources suggest that he was going to approach Parthia through Dacia 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 Farsalus. Although it's a bit vague precisely that he was going to sort of march through them, subdue them. 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 Trajan more than a hundred years later. He will take control of it. Right. Yes. Interestingly, Trajan'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 Alexandrian 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 armoured

forces, but also their light-armoured Parthian archers. And Parthian archers are renowned for their skill in battle. So coming up against an 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 Publius Ventidius to Parthia in 40 and 40 and 39. And he actually has many successes against Parthia. He kills the Roman turncoat Labienus 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 lay 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 a fascinating what if, isn't it? Which I'm, you know, trying to figure out, you know, 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 at this time, there are kingdoms that are, you know, have a 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 administrated by Rome, but they have this arrangement. And absolutely Armenia, which is the kingdom just west, as it were, of, 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 Minor and Turkey, with their own armies and resources that could also be called on. So absolutely, I think Caesar would not be averse to drawing on those connections as well. I'm sorry if he already 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 sort of. 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 crossed ocean. Ocean in their mind, isn't it? Yeah, the channel sea, yes. The concept of oceanus, this world sea. And for them, yes, the English channel is that, or at least you can frame it like that. And this was going to be the eastward 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 Alexander the Great mindset coming to the front in Caesar's aspirations? I think that's exactly it. And we can make comparisons to his erstwhile son-in-law, Pompey the Great, thus often named because of, you know, again, aspiring to be like Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king who, you know, supposedly conquered the known world, as far as India. And Pompey himself had had triumphs over three continents. 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 Parthians 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 party in 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 your rules, as it were. Because we also have that famous story, isn't it, from many, many years earlier when Caesar's in Spain before he's made, 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 he sees a statue of Alexander and supposedly weeps that, you know, he hasn't done much yet. So that mindset is

certainly there, isn't it? I mean, 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 some, or being 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 feels like he would have tried to get there, but yeah, who knows? 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. So his claim to that kind of world reach is that it's sort of diplomatic. But I'm sure, yeah, Caesar like, for example, perhaps someone like Trajan, who was more successful campaigning against Asia and Parthia,

was trying to push as far, far east as he could go, almost perhaps to 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 Gould or somewhere, you know, either rivals, you know, who'd stay quiet in the Senate or if they've, if there was no I said Marchpot 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 with Sulla and Marius doing the same kind of thing when Sulla's away and Marius and Rome. So it's funny to consider

that. Like, if he'd have gone further and further east or gone that way, is there more chance of instability and an uprising at Rome in the West? Absolutely. And I think Tristan that, you know, if he was to push further east, but still maintain his position of dictator, you know, sending back commentaries on his great glorious Eastern campaigns, that's not going to dissuade those who are managing the rest of Rome, that he's not a king. It doesn't remove the problem that initiates the Ides 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? Last one on the military campaigns and then I'd like to ask about his health and then we'll explore some key characters as well. Like, of course, Cleopatra. You mentioned kind of conquering the whole world idea, which is a pretty big idea, pretty big aim, ambition for Caesar, the known world. But would that have also meant that he would have wanted to conquer the great step north of the Black Sea as well, the land as Sivier, you know, even more horse archers up there, another bane of Rome?

I mean, and Amazonian women fighters as well. I mean, what do we think? So perhaps we could look to his British campaign as an example of what you can claim to have done, even if you haven't necessarily done much. So, you know, he crosses the great world sea of ocean. He goes to Britain on two countries. 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 reaching the limits and what, for example, the Romans would have considered the limits of, you know, the inhabited world. Obviously, they need.

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, done it. And that again is a massive claim. Cicero and his speeches in 56 makes a 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 and Shield. So would that rhetoric have continued? Yeah, 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 50, 49 BC? Well, can we explore his personal health now? Because we hinted at it earlier that he's not in the greatest health actually around the time of the eyes of March.

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, Suetonius 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. 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. So Xenophon's an ancient Greek writer and does he, he talks about that, does he 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 purportedly said, that's not for me. I'd rather be quick and sudden. And in that respect, I suppose 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. I'm actually thinking about the Athenian Solon in Herodotus going to the Persian king, Cruces, and Cruces asking him, who was the happiest man alive?

Surely it's me. Look at all my wealth. And Solon says, call 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 eking out his life. Do you think that could have easily motivated him for that Parthian campaign and that military campaigning?

Yes, there is once again 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 played a role into it? Do you think there's probably a... Well, it seems, what you were saying 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 later writers who are writing knowing what happens to Caesar and knowing there's that sudden violent end. But I think, yes, certainly for a man who has 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 on a blaze of glory. Who knows? 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 Parthian 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. So his grain 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 would 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, is the sort of famous encounter with Cleopatra, and allegedly the product of their union being Cleopatra's firstborn son, Ptolemy Caesar, or Caesarian, as the Alexandrians called him, a very clear nod to who she was claiming the father was. That means Little Caesar, doesn't it? Exactly, yes. Thank you. Good nod, yeah, yes.

But for Cleopatra, this was a really good card to play, because she'd got rid of her co-regent and brother, Ptolemy the 13th. 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 tolemy, 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 Cesarian's legitimacy. Seiz and never publicly claimed him as his own offspring at Rome, although Suetonius tells us that he did allow the boy to receive his name. So whether that's a kind of like, you know, acting like a godfather or where sort of saying, yes, he's mine, but not an illegal Roman sense. That his own friends, including Mark Anthony,

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 apologising and saying that Caesar is not Caesarian's father. But again, that's because he's trying to support Octavian. So there's lots of questions over Caesareans' 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.

Anthony, who as we know becomes Cleopatra's lover after Caesar and has more children with her, twins, a 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 Parthian 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 whether Caesar might have done something like that or whether for him that would have been conceding land to Egypt

and maybe he would have wanted to treat Egypt more like the client kingdoms we spoke about earlier, these friendly kings. But to have a potential offspring who is a monarch of Egypt might be a way of linking Rome and having a Roman stake in Egypt, which Augustus does differently because he conquers Egypt, he kills Caesarean, and he creates a Roman province, but perhaps Caesar might have gone a different route.

He might have monopolised on the fact that he had that son potentially. We're told by Suetonius that a Tribune of 44 allegedly saw 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 a story from hindsight, but the idea about having offspring, having heirs, Caesarean in the background as this Roman Ptolemaic 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 in its 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, isn't it, Hannah, according to our sources, that when Caesar was assassinated, Cleopatra was in Rome at that time, flaunting her wealth, no much not being like a Roman woman should be in Cicero's eyes,

but she was there. Was Cesarian there with her as well? Age two. Age 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 Mark Anthony had done? Would he become more open to Cleopatra and Caeserion and showing them on the main stage with him and, you know, promoting that link with Egypt? They're fascinating things to consider, isn't it? Absolutely. And as you say, yes, Cleopatra-Casarian were in Rome when Caesar was assassinated, as far as we can tell. She gets out pretty quickly after that, realizing that this is not a safe position. But you're right, Caesar did host Cleopatra

and her brother, Ptolemy, 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 people. 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 tongues wagging. Do you think there could have been any likelihood that Caesar would have done, like would have become the Mark Antony instead, that he could, but if he was going east, maybe takes Cleopatra with him if he was going east and then looking at Alexandria and thinking about that going forward?

Or is he very different in his character? I think you're right to sort of think about the similarities to Mark Antony, but absolutely the differences. I mean, on a very sort of trivial way, you know, Mark Antony is is infamously a drunkard, according to Cicero, whereas, whereas Caesar is almost a teetotaler. 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, Mark Antony doesn't seem to have that. And of course we're looking at these through the sources that Mark Hansenny suffers

from being the opponent of Augustus and all the rhetoric and 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 of 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 what that supposedly happens, compared to Mark Anthony. But that could just be because, you know, Mark Anthony has a much more protracted time with her. He's out in the East and he's trying to deal with the organisation 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 Mark Antony and Cliope. Tatra romantically and sexually, but it's as much political as anything else for both of them. Going back to that political side then. Anna, do you think there was any chance that Julius Caesar on the kind of 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? When we go back to the Lubiclea and this sort of offering of kingship and his refusal, it feels very performative. It feels like his test in the water. Would people accept me? And even though he never sort of becomes king, this idea of being dictator perpetuo,

dictator without interruption, it's interesting to think about that in relation to the one other Roman figure who was also a dictator without any time limit set on that, which is Sula, who was dictator at the end of the 80s, after sort of a decade of civil war. But Sulla, and he puts lots of legislation in place to nominally restore the state, Sulla retires. He goes, right, job's done.

I'm going to retire to my villa in the countryside. You can all handle this. Supposedly, Caesar says that Sulla didn't have a good political education because he gave up the dictatorship. He's saying Sulla 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 sort of statements that Caesar apparently made,

along with the Republic is nothing. It's just the name. It has no substance or form. That men should, you know, listen to my opinion and they should treat my word as law. These sayings which are framing him above the state in some way, that he's constantly wanting to hold on to power. I suppose 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 down that 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, pursue, let's imagine that Mark Anthony is 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 in all but name by that point is, you know, as formidable as Caesar was, I'm sure he wasn't someone who was also aloof or unreceiving of praise and being lauded 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. Steele Brand about this, who does a lot about kind of the Republican mindset. And if, if, you know, 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 rex, to the emperor, even after all the hardships that Roma's 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 remembered the time of the Roman Republic, who wanted to get back to it, that they would have been able to form strong enough opposition, like you see ultimately 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 Iads of March, people still had memories of the Republic before and there would always be strong opposition that could have brought him down, maybe compared to Octavian later, who there's lesser 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 Iads 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, but he says, you know, 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 Anthony and Octavian that there's no one left to challenge the man who would become Augustus to sole power. So it's a kind of timing thing. It's the loss of those people who did have an idea of the Republic. Tacitus, who is an imperial historian

writing under Trasian, 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. I would like to ask about one other figure before also exploring another interesting 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, you know, 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 big plans for him? Very good question. You're absolutely right that young Octavian catapults his career off the back of Caesar's assistant. assassination and his position as the primary heir. 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 Apollonia, so modern-day Albania, studying. You know, 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, you know, he was named as Caesar's primary heir in his will when that will was read after the assassination.

Caesar might have made a different will later in life if he'd survived, but if that will stayed in place, he was going to be Caesar's heir. That doesn't mean that he would necessarily succeed Caesar politically, but that legally he takes hold of 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? him was still going to be a question. That succession crisis, even if he's not, you know, the king, he doesn't make that leap,

if let's say Cleopatra and Caesarian have become a bit more prominent, you know, if he does, you know, marry other women as well, non-Roman women and like, and has more children, and like could there have been like a fight off between like young Caesarian and Octavian in the future and 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 Cesarian was an Alexandrian philosopher. Ericius says to him, he says, too many Caesars 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 heir of 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 is no 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.

Hannah, this has been absolutely fantastic. One last scenario I want to put to you in this story is we've kind of approached it first and foremost as if the Iads of March plot never happened. like they miss 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 sussed 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 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 wars. He forgave them. Cicero, wasn't he? He was one, Ambrutus. Absolutely. Yes, Ambrutus. Cato famously, you know, kills himself rather than having to experience the clemency of Caesar. So that's one way to approach.

Would he have treated them the same way as he treated civil war? opponents. It's interesting that in Suetonius' account, he gives us a quote from Caesar, not sort of the famous one, et tu Brute, kaisu Tekon, 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 violence against a private individual or public violence. And as Caesar was consul, he is a public figure. So I wonder whether they could have been charged in legal law courts

under a charge of public political violence. And if found guilty, the traditional punishment is exile. Oh, okay. The traditional punishment is being forbidden water or fire. Oh, okay. But it's exile. We might also reflect on how Caesar himself approached like 20 years earlier, the treatment of the Catalinarian conspirators. So this was when Cicero was

consul. Cataline 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 to 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, you cannot execute them without trial before the people. So quite how he would have approached, this is, you know, 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,

oh, they must stand trial before the people. But perhaps the people, if they had stood trial, would have been outraged at this attack against Caesar. Well, exactly, yes. They could, the Mark Cantony and whoever could very much have rolled them up, couldn't they? Given that popular support Caesar has, you know, yeah, it's amazing to consider, isn't it? Or whether they do ultimately go into exile and join that other Labienus you mentioned earlier in Parthia. And then you've got this big group of conspirators, you know, in the court of the Parthian king. Yes, exile whilst perhaps legally a sound and moral option, might have 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 gotten 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, whether Brutus's or Mark Antony and Starris.

so on and so forth, but we won't delve into that. We'll leave it for you, our listeners, to 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 aides of March and, you know, theorising 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 their 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, a little bit like the crossing of the Rubicon. And the what if narratives you can construct have infinite possibilities, which I think are 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 could it have been different? Exactly. The great thing about doing hypothetical episodes like this, as 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

forwards a plausible theory behind it. So yes, it's very much kind of working the brain and 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 Dr. 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 Ides of March. The first time we've really done one of these what if episodes, these hypothetical episodes, so 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 podcasts. If you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, well, 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 slash subscribe. That's all from me. I'll see you in the next episode.