1. There would have been another popular upprising against Brutus, most probably being more Democratic ala Athens. This would mean that Caesar woudl probably have been a servant of the Democracy, rather than one who could overthrow a Republc. Republics are a lot easier to overthrow than Democracies, because Democracies are less predictable. If Brutus had been crowned King, and things remained this way, many different situations arise:
  • There is no reason for individuals to expand the borders of Rome - the main reason to do so was personal glory
  • Rome would therefore have remained an Italiote power
  • I would see them being a lot like Athens, ie spreading Colonies
  • Carthage may have become the main Meditteranean power, rather than Rome
  • There are no more personal power bases, all the power is centralised in the King
  • An incompetent King would ruin any large gains Rome could make - Like the Later Roman Emperors


2. Again, popular uprisings would occur in the citie, probably forming more military based areas, such as Sparta. This would only occur when there is a weaker Persian ruler. If you look at Asia Minor, when the Greek cities there were under Persian rule, they were for the most part happy, hwoever they also supported people like Alexander who came to "liberate" them. Ultimately, they would be content, until such a time came as they could rise up.

3. Well if #1 occured, this is not a likely situation, because the Republic could not have produced the great generals it needed to fight against the Carthaginians. However, I do not see Carthage forming Kingdoms. They had a verys table Republic, of which the Barcids were willing participants.