Hey there,

If you've come to the thread and are wondering why there's no answer yet: we have found that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time, and sometimes it takes more and sometimes it takes less.

In other words, patience, good people. If you want to be reminded to look at this thread later, please see this really awesome Roundtable post for a list of ways. And if you're wondering why Reddit never shows you an AskHistorians thread with answers, consider sorting your Reddit home feed by 'Hot' rather than 'Best' - 'Best' seems to give precedence to newer posts (which are less likely to have an answer on this subreddit, of course) and threads you haven't already looked at (e.g., it'll show you something else next time you log in, even if this thread is still getting lots of upvotes because there's an actual answer now).

If you're wondering what's in the 13 removed comments at the time of writing, most of it is people simply linking to podcasts and bloggers or writing a sentence or two, or people complaining about removed comments, and a couple of attempts at answers that unfortunately didn't meet the standards in our subreddit rules. All of these comments get removed on /r/AskHistorians because the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on /r/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it!)

On /r/AskHistorians, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are according to academic research, but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context. This is why we encourage the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions, rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks.

In other words, on /r/AskHistorians, we'd rather have no answer than bad attempts at answers. By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen (see this graph for more detail). The downside to this is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed comments. The upside is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to /r/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our Sunday Digest), and daily on our Twitter. Alternatively, if you want to discuss history without these constraints, /r/history or /r/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than /r/AskHistorians.

Caesar's contemporaries seemed to have reason to expect this kind of military action before the end of 44 BCE at least after his assassination, if not before it. Cicero (de Div., ii. 110) refers obliquely to a rumor spreading among the people that Caesar needed to be granted the title of king:

We Romans venerate the verses of the Sibyl who is said to have uttered them while in a frenzy. Recently there was a rumour, which was believed at the time, but turned out to be false, that one of the interpreters of those verses was going to declare in the Senate that, for our safety, the man whom we had as king in fact should be made king also in name.

This story is also told by Suetonius (Iul. 79.3):

Nay, more, the report had spread in various quarters that [Caesar] intended to move to Ilium or Alexandria, taking with him the resources of the state, draining Italy by levies, and leaving the charge of the city to his friends; also that at the next meeting of the Senate Lucius Cotta would announce as the decision of Fifteen, that inasmuch as it was written in the books of fate that the Parthians could be conquered only by a king, Caesar should be given that title.

Dio (xliv. 15, 3) also records this rumor of the Sibylline oracle and that the Parthians could only be conquered by a king. While all this points to evidence that the people knew of these rumors surrounding Caesar and that they may have expected a Parthian invasion by Caesar, scholars believe that this story, rather than being wholly true, gives the appearance of subsequently justifying the ultimate tyrannicide. (Townend 1983) (Indeed Dio's account goes so far as to claim that the conspirators in Caesar's assassination actually believed the rumor.)

The most detailed account of the Parthian project is described by Plutarch (Caes., 58.2-5). It's important to note, however, that Plutarch's writing, Parallel Lives, was called such as he published pairs of biographical works of one Greek and one Roman in one "book". Pairing Caesar with Alexander meant that Plutarch wanted the reader to draw comparanda between the two historical figures as the two lives were meant to be read together. (Pelling 1986; Stadter 1975)

Thus, many scholars believe that such an extravagant military programme, as detailed in Plutarch, was not so much an historical account of reality, as it was literary flourish on the part of Plutarch who paired Caesar's biography with the great conqueror Alexander. Scholars take as evidence for this point the fact that the date of Plutarch's composition is placed during the early second-century CE when Trajan had already conquered Dacia, established a Roman province there, and was planning an invasion of Parthian territory. Moreover, the lack of military forces in the east in 44 BCE, either in Cilicia or Syria, suggests that the Parthian expedition was eithermostly literary construction or not of paramount importance to Caesar. (McDermott, 1982/1983)

Sources:

Buszard, B. 2008. "Caesar's Ambition: A Combined Reading of Plutarch's Alexander-Caesar and Pyrrhus-Marius." TAPA 138: 185-215.

Cicero: De Senectute De Amicitia De Divinatione. With An English Translation. William Armistead Falconer. Cambridge. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England. 1923.

McDermott, William C. 1982/1983. "Caesar's Projected Dacian-Parthian Expedition." Ancient Society 13/14: 223-231.

Pelling, C. B. R. 1986. "Synkrisis in Plutarch's Lives." In F. E. Brenk and I. Gallo, eds., Miscellanea Plutarchea: Atti del I convegno di studi su Plutarco (Roma, 23 novembre 1985), Quaderni del Giornale Filologico Ferrarese 8: 83-96. Ferrara.

Stadter, P. A. 1975. "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and Fabius Maximus." GRBS 16: 77-85. Reprinted in Scardigli, ed., 155-64. Oxford.

Suetonius: Vitae Caesarium. With An English Translation. J. C. Rolfe. Cambridge. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England. 1913.

Townend, G. B. 1983. "A Clue to Caesar's Unfulfilled Intentions." Latomus, T. 42, 3: 601-606.