What would have changed if Brutus had been to the movies on 03/15/44 BC

[Potator II]

Hi
Today is the 15th of march : Ides of march. That very day, some years ago, in 44 BC, Julius Caesar was killed, by Brutus, history says, but not only him, as far as we know.
If Brutus had been somewhere else this day (say to the pictures or a baseball match...) what would have changed in your opinion ? Would Ceasar still be the ruler now ?
I know it's irrelevant to re-write History, but it's just a way to celebrate this anniversary, and thanks to Brutus if we have so many different emperors busts to collect...

Regards
Potator

[Robert_Brenchley]

Is there in fact any evidence as to who struck the fatal blow? if he hadn't beek killed then, he might well have been killed later. He was planning a Parthian campaign, and he wouldn't have been facing a mass of tribes there, but a united empire which had already destroyed Crassus, and under Orodes II, might well have done the same to him. I think he was walking a tightrope, with a very good chance of falling off at some point.

[Jochen]

And killed or not be killed I think the future of the Roman Empire would have been the same. It was the time of the Principate!

Best regards

[PLINIUS]

Ave Caesar

Caesar was quite old when he was killed. He was likely ill, in the fatal ides of march. He was sufferent, the night before the ides he said: Satis diu vel naturae vixi vel gloriae.
Caesar was a man tired by life, with a chronic pathology. I think he would't survive to the partian war. So, I think that the ides of march didn' change the  history. 

Plinius

[bruce61813]

There was a show on the The History Channel about 3 years ago , where an Italian dectective did a forensic "re-construction" of the killing, he treated it like a modern crime re-construction.  The final conclusion was intersting, it was in a sense that Ceasar commited what amount to a martyrdom death. That he knew of the plot, but chose the death and become a martyr, and get vengence on some of his enemies. Remember there was still a very strong faction that wanted Rome to remain a Republic. Ceasar was very ill and from his writings, it is known that he did not expect to survive for any length of time. Most of the war plans were for a show of strength, to maintain the illusion of his health and power. Had he not been killed by the Republican faction, he probably would have been incapacitated by illness and the Republican faction may have been able to regain control of the Senate and government.

Bruce

[Robert_Brenchley]

I saw that; it does seem a little implausible that Caesar knew nothing of the plot. At the same time, epilepsy is a very complex thing, and I felt that the programme made it appear much too clear cut; I'm a very long way from being convinced that it's possible to establish the type of epilepsy he had as any sort of firm hypothesis at all. It could also be that he was simply so arrogant that he failed to take the plot seriously, or something along those lines.

[Retrospectator]

It's an interesting question which one can go on speculating about: the possible outcome of Caesar's projected campaign against the Parthians. On the one hand, it may have been difficult for even Caesar's reputation to stem the over-confidence of the Parthians following the slaughter of Crassus: Cassius' subsequent victory over the Parthians wasn't on a scale large enough it seems to discourage them from making further military expeditions into Roman territory a little later. If Parthian over-confidence & contempt of Roman arms was such as to make an over-eager assault on a well balanced army under the command of Caesar, I'd be somewhat inclined to expect the result to be alot different to what happened at Carrhae. Even if Marc Anthony had used Caesar's strategy for his own miserable campaign against the Parthians, we still can't really glean anything from the outcome of that because by that time their defeats at the hands of Ventidius had made the Parthians more cautious IMHO.
   

[Retrospectator]

Going on the assumption that Caesar may have been successful in the East, there would then be the question of how long any territorial conquest would last for: not long IMHO. I suspect that it would probably last as long as Caesar lived. Any occasion of civil war in the Roman world after Caesar, and the Parthians would depose their Roman puppet king/governors, leaving the Roman governor of Armenia somewhat beleaguered etc ... etc ... 

[Robert_Brenchley]

Parthia was too large for the Romans to conquer it; they could retreat into Central Asia, way beyond reach, if necessary. Same in reverse; each one was as likely to conquer the other as Napoleon to finish off Russia. The most they could do was to gain territory at the other's expense, and this generally turned out to be temporary.