What if the Ides of March Failed?

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Chutaburg 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.

Let's visit historyhit.com slash subscribe.

Right now at globalgamingleague.com that's globalgamingleague.com everybody games has the news

been getting you down. I'm Megan McCartle and I'm here to help. I'm the host of a new show

from Washington Post opinion called reasonably optimistic and it's an antidote to the pessimism

that's riddling America right now. Every Wednesday I'm going to talk to people who see

a path forward. It does seem to me that there is some awakening of a desire to act together

to solve problems where they are.

No, I am a believer in America and it's worth fighting for.

Join me Wednesdays on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

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. 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, Calpernia, begs him not to go, fearing a plot. Then, on route, he spots a sooth

sail 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. 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 regularly 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 red. Twenty-three 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 Julia

Caesar, an assassination that would prove the death knell for the Roman Republic. But,

what if he had survived the heights, what if this assassination attempt had never happened,

or what if it had failed? What would have happened next for Julia 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, one of those big moments,

what if the Iads of March hadn't happened? Absolutely, and the Iads of March has such

currency, I think, even for us today. I think most listeners, if not all, have probably heard

but where the Iads of March, thanks to Shakespeare's Julia Caesar, but it was also something that

the ancients after Caesar's assassination, spoilers, that happened. We're also talking about,

and it was a sort of concept for them, Cicero about 11 months after Caesar had been killed,

wrote letter to Cassius, one of the assassins or liberators, saying, I wish you would invited

me to that banquet on the Iads of March. There would have been nothing left, 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 Julia 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 Friedman's cap. So he's saying, this was an act

of tyrannosite 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

Julia Caesar and who ultimately did. Just also you mentioned that Cicero calls it a banquet.

I'm guessing that's just colorful language for the multiple stabbings 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 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 marshes,

which is the floodplain next to the Tiber, a monumental complex with a theater, 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. This is where the Senate meet on the 15th of March, which then

becomes almost potentious that when Caesar is assassinated and dies, he falls at the foot of a statue

of Pompey is 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 Ides 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 one of the accounts there's the Sufseer saying beware the Ides of March.

He said that earlier, hasn't he? Like he sees the Sufseer again supposedly on the day,

and Caesar says, look, the Ides of March are here, I'm still alive. Ha, ha, ha, ha, but according to,

I think that's in the later Roman paragraph for Suetonius, and then the Sufseer supposedly

cleverly replies, snarkly replies, yeah, but they're not over yet, but I wouldn't count your

chickens as just yet. Exactly, and Suetonius, alongside recording the account of the Sufseer,

also talks about Caesar's wife, Calpurnia, having a dream, dreams the Romans are, you know,

potend 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 potents 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

about of ill health, which he had been suffering of late in later. Which is interesting, very interesting,

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

this curial chair as the magistrate, and one of the conspirators approaches him and sort of touches

his toger 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 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. They're actually

in 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 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, 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, lauding it over

everyone else. You always have 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 consul ships 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 conceptualize 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. 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 Roman people and to the Senate?

And alongside that, like, kind of dictator, perpetuo, 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 honor him in 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 honor

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 triumfator, and 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 a sort of golden chair of office.

His status 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 it's since the time of the kings almost, because it almost feels with that like,

cult like portrayal, I might think of these, those great kingdoms,

in Greece and Egypt, the tolamies and so on, like that kind of divine ruler cult, 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 happens a month before his assassination,

which is the Roman festival of the Lupacal, the Lupacalia, 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 do 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 Antony,

who allegedly is completely naked and oiled up, because he is the director of the Lupacal festival,

and that's about young men running through the streets, but he places the crown on Caesar's head,

sees it again refuses, he fricking 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

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 Lupacalea festival sounds absolutely bizarre, like naked men running through the street,

and Mark Einstein pulling out a crown from somewhere. A lot of a rief from somewhere even.

But of course, this is a few years after, like he's been, he's done his campaigns in

Gould, he's done the civil wars, hasn't he? So all of his former opponents like Kato,

Pompey, they've all been killed, so he feels like the last man standing. He's changed time as well,

and I love the same act, as in 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 their 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, small minority, and that Caesar

has in large a Senate with his own supporters. So ostensibly, everything the Senate has been doing,

all these honors 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 principle,

where it becomes quite sickofantic. 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.

And 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 and 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 for

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 whether

this is coming from besides his elite opponent. So there's graffiti that appears one of his statues,

saying, Brutus was made consul first. And this is referring to the first consul of the Roman

Republic, Lucius Unius Brutus in 509, who got rid of the kings, 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, there's also a graffiti, which says, if only you were 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, an imperial biographer, loves gossip, loves 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 Lupacalia, 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 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 on the 18th of March to leave Rome and to march east. Three days later, 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 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 had 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 undercrassus 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. Legion 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, does it 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 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 generally 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 from what you mentioned there. So Parthia, you're afraid he's river, so

think ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq and Iran, Macedonia as well, so they can 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 we'll delve into. I think

first and foremost, does this also emphasize the urgency of those conspirators that they had to

take him out on the I's of March, and if they miss 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

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,

a particular road in Rome going home, or perhaps outside the theater, 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 Crasseus, and the large numbers of the Roman army, but they evidently did not want to take

that risk. The I's 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 matrices 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?

So let's envisage that they didn't take the moment for whatever reason, and actually that they

never even tried to assassinate Caesar. They missed 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 and integrity details that sometimes, well, maybe me, myself personally a bit too much,

love to delve into a military campaign. We're not going to bore you, Hannah, or any of our audience

with that. 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, you know, 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,

and we'll 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 armored forces, but also their light armored 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 Antony 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

Labienas 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 and 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 fascinating what it isn't here, which I'm, you know,

trying to figure out 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 low 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 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 you 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 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, crossed ocean.

Ocean in their mind, isn't it? Yeah, the chance to say yes. The concept of oceanists,

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, getting as far as India. And Pompey himself 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 Parthian conquest, they're sort of the cherry on top of the cake. If you can conquer that,

not only are the greatest military command of all time, but you have bound together the world

under under your rules at work. Because we also have that famous story, isn't it, 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 he sees a

statue of Alexander and supposedly weeps that, you know, he hasn't done much yet. So that

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 something 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, 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, though 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 Trasian, who was more successful campaigning against

Asia and Parthia was trying to push as far 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 Gould or somewhere, or, you know, either

rivals, you know, who'd stay quiet in the Senate, or if they've, if there was no

item march 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 with Sulla and Marius doing the same kind of

thing when Sulla's 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, is there more chance of instability and an uprising at Rome

or the West? Absolutely. And I think Tristan, that, you know, if he was to push further east, but

still maintain his position of dictator, perpetuo, 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

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's 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?

Has the news been getting you down? I'm Megan McCartle and I'm here to help. I'm the host of a new

show from Washington Post Opinion called Reasonably Optimistic, and it's an antidote to the pessimism

that's riddling America right now. Every Wednesday I'm going to talk to people who see a path

forward. It does seem to me that there is some awakening of a desire to act together to solve

problems where they are. You know, I am a believer in America and it's worth fighting for.

Join me Wednesdays on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

What started the civil war? What ended the conflict in Vietnam? Who was Paul Revere?

And did the Vikings ever reach America?

I'm Don Wildman and on American history, my expert guests and I are journeying across the nation

and through the years to uncover the stories that have made America. We'll visit the battlefields

and debate floors for the nation was formed, meet the characters who have altered it with their touch

and count the votes that have changed the direction of our laws and leadership.

Find American history yet twice a week every week wherever you get your podcasts.

American history here. A podcast from history here.

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. Of course, Cleopatra. You mentioned kind of conquering the whole

world idea, which it's a pretty big idea, 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 of Sivir, even more horse archers up there and other bane of Rome.

And Amazonian women fighters as well. What do we think?

So perhaps we can 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 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 knew about India, they knew about China,

but was that a realistic goal? Very much so. 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 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, you know, 50,

49 BC? What 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 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 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, does he in his writings?

So he's reading something in Xenophon that is obviously discussing an individual who had,

you know, and 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, 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 Solon in Herodotus, going to the Persian king,

Kriusius, and Kriusius 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 eaking out his

life. Do you think that could have easily motivated him for that path in the campaign and that

military campaigning? Yes, there is once again the threat of death. But, you know, maybe when his

idea in his mind, certainly the kind of glorified end, potentially if he lost his life on campaign,

could that have paid a roll into it? Do you think there's probably a, let's see where it seems

for 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. Although 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 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

open 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. All right, so his grain legislation to ensure that

there is a steady supply of 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, is the sort of famous encounter with

Cleopatra, and allegedly the product of their union being Cleopatra's firstborn son,

Tollamy Caesar, or Caesarian, as the Alexanderans called him, a very clear nod to who she was claiming

the father war. 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, Tollamy 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, 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

Caesarian's legitimacy. Caesar never publicly claimed him as his own offspring at Rome,

although Stuartonius 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 I was sort of saying, yes, he's mine,

but not in a legal 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,

apologising, 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 Caesarian's 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 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 he would have, or whether for 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 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 Cesarean, and he creates a Roman province, but perhaps Caesar

might have gone a different route, he might have monopolized on the fact that he had that son,

potentially. We're told by Suetonius that a Tribune of 44, a allegedly sort of 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, Cesarean 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, potentially having more and more heirs, it's fascinating to explore all of that

because it's also the fact, isn'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. Was

Cesarean there with her as well? Yes, age two. Age two. So there 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 the position of himself, that yes, would he have

kind of done similar to what Mark Hansi had done? Would he become more open to Cleopatra and

Cesarean and showing them on the main stage with him and promoting that link with Egypt? Are

they're fascinating things to consider, isn't it? Absolutely, and as you say yes,

Cleopatra Cesarean 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 your right

Caesar did host Cleopatra and her brother told me the 14th in his house at the time, Cicero does not

like Cleopatra one bit, but officially they're there to be recognised 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, kind of, would have become the Mark Antony instead, that he could, but 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 forwards, 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

informously a drunkard, according to Cicero, whereas Caesar is almost a T-totaler. He doesn't,

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 Antony 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 a sort of 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 Mark Antony, but that

could just be because Mark Antony 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 Mark Antony and Cleopatra romantically, and sexually, but it's

much political as anything else for both of them. Going 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,

ought 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 Lubakalia,

and this sort of offering of kingship in his refusal, it feels very performative. It feels like

he's testing the waters. Would people accept me? And even though he, you know, he never sort of

becomes king, this idea of being dictator of a pectuo, dictator without interruption,

it's interesting to think about that in relation to the one other Roman figure who was also

dictator without any time limit set on that, which is Sulla, who was dictator at the end of the 80s

after sort of a decade of civil war. But Sulla, 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. So these sort of statements that Caesar 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 I suppose we see that in a 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

and 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, he's sent it, all the people around him, you know,

presumably, let's say, let's imagine that Mark Anthony is still very much backing him, all those

sentences still backing him, all those kind of lackey voices in his ears that have been giving him

all of the honors. Basically, he kind of a king in all but named by that point is, you know,

for middle of Caesar was, I'm sure he wasn't someone who was also a luke 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, this, this is the thing.

Because I remember talking to Dr. Steele Brandt 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

Rex to the Emperor, even after with the hardships that Rome has 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 know, you see,

obviously with the wars following Caesar's death, then actually if Caesar dared make that gap,

make that jump, you know, anytime later, if he hadn't survived the Ida 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, I think that's right, Tristan. Cicero writing a letter to a personal friend

of Caesar a couple of months after the Ida 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, 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 empowered, 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 will become Augustus to, to sell power. So it's a kind of timing thing. It's, it's the

loss of those people who did have an idea of the Republic Tacitus, who is an imperial historian

writing under treason, 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. Hey, it's Howie Mandel, and I'm inviting you to witness history as me, and my Howie do it

gaming team take on Gilly DeKing and wallow 267's million dollars gaming in an epic global gaming

league video game showdown, four rounds, multiple games, one winner, plus a halftime performance by

multi platinum artist, Travis McCoy. Watch all the action and see who wins and advances to the

championship match against Neo right now at globalgamingleague.com that's globalgamingleague.com

everybody games. Has the news been getting you down? I'm Megan McCartle and I'm here to help.

I'm the host of a news show from Washington Post opinion called reasonably optimistic,

and it's an antidote to the pessimism that's riddling America right now. Every Wednesday,

I'm going to talk to people who see a path forward. It does seem to me that there is some awakening

of a desire to act together to solve problems where they are. Now I am a believer in America and

it's worth fighting for. Join me Wednesdays on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

I wouldn't 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 kind of the projected air of Caesar. If Caesar hadn't been assassinated and he does

return to Rome and 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

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. He was being trained in rhetoric as you 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 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 who's coming after him was still going to be a question.

That succession crisis, even if he's not a king, he doesn't make that leap. If let's say

Cleopatra and Caesarean have become a bit more prominent, if he does marry other women as well,

non-Roman women, and I can have some more children, and could there have been a fight

off between young Caesarean and Octavian in the future, and maybe several other potential contenders,

another funny one to consider. That's exactly it. An anecdote from when Octavian was deciding

the fate of Caesarean was an Alexandrian philosopher, Erisius 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 odds 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

I's of March, you know, Caesar was on his way to the Senate House, but something goes terribly wrong,

and the plot is sust-out. Caesar gets word. 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,

as he forgave them. The Cicero wasn't that he was one. Ambrutus. Absolutely. Yes, Ambrutus.

Kato famously, you know, kills 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 Suetonius' account, he gives us a quote from Caesar, not

the sort of the famous one at Tu Brute Kaisu Technon, 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 private individual or public violence, and as Caesar was counsel, 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.

The traditional punishment is being forbidden water off fire. Oh, okay.

But it's exile. We might also reflect on how Caesar himself approached, like 20 years earlier,

the treatment of the Catalynarian conspirators. So this was when Cicero was counsel, 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, and you cannot execute them

without trial before the people. So whether, you know, 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, they must down trial before the people, but perhaps the people, if they had to do trial,

would have been outraged at this attack against Caesar.

Well, exactly. Yes, the Marcantian, whoever could very much have rolled them up,

could they, given that popular support, Caesar has, you know, the, yeah, it's amazing to

consider, isn't it, or whether they do go suddenly going to exile and join that other

labyriners he mentioned earlier in Parthian, and then you've got this big group of conspirators,

you know, in the court of the Parthian king. Yes, exile, well, 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 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, 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 Ides 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 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, 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? 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 for 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 Eids 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.

Hey, it's Howie Mandel and I am inviting you to witness history as me and my Howie do it gaming team

take on Gilly DeKing and wallow 267's million dollars gaming in an epic global gaming league video

game showdown four rounds multiple games one winner plus a halftime performance by multi platinum

artists. Travee McCoy watch all the action and see who wins and advances to the championship match

against neo right now at global gaming league dot com that's global gaming league dot com everybody

games has the news been getting you down. I'm Megan McCartle and I'm here to help. I'm the host of

a new show from Washington Post opinion called reasonably optimistic and it's an antidote to the

pessimism that's riddling America right now. Every Wednesday I'm going to talk to people who see

a path forward. It does seem to me that there is some awakening of a desire to act together to solve

problems where they are. You know I am a believer in America and it's worth fighting for. Join me

Wednesdays on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.