Imagine if Caesar had lived on aanother ten years. Heraklia observes rightly that perhaps half that time would have been spent at the front in Parthia (assuming his conquest was going as planned).

That would leave Caesar another five years, perhaps, for reform. Had he conquered Parthia, he would have had sufficient money to lavish games, gifts, public works and monuments not only on Rome but on chosen cities around the Empire. But let's just consider some other items ...

There is the matter of Cleopatra and Caesarion. Not a trifling affair at all. Cleopatra would have brought up her son in Rome while awaiting the return of her paramour. And what would Caesar have done upon his return? Little Caesarion would have been six I think. And what a lineage ... Egyptian and Roman ... heir to one royal throne and therefore a powerful argument for creating another in Rome, itself!

No Caesar would not have been so subtle as Augustus. He had no need to be! He had no triumvirs to outwit and outlast. He would have been not only Dictator for Life, he would have exceeded Pompey's conquests and and Crassus and Pompey's wealth combined!

The real key to what Caesar would have done had he lived is to be found in Cleopatra, Caesarion and Caesar's use of the royal throne in Egypt for whatever purposes he might have dreamed ... like establishing a new Roman throne.

How's that for speculation, Heraklia?