User blog comment:KhanTonto/So you think you know history?/@comment-3218619-20150412132733/@comment-7700555-20150412150237

Pita the Roman Republic would not have lasted anyway, it was on its last legs as it was. To begin it was a system of government created to rule a small city state, not a growing empire. It was a system that was largely inefficient and unable to solve the basic problems the nation faced.

If Octavian was never born, Caesar would probably just adopt someone else. Either way doesn't change much even if he doesn't.

After the death of Caesar there was a good decade worth of fighting that persisted, during which time the republic was not exactly very republican. For one after 43 BC power was divided between Octavian, Anthony, and Lepidus. This included supreme political authority, something not characteristic of a republic. If Octavian doesn't exist this triumvirate is instead divided between two, or a third minor. Keep in mind that Caesar had no fundamental monarchical role, he held the dictatorship, which did not transfer to his heir. Caesar was also not particularly wealthy. His heir wasn't particularly special, aside from the fact that they could harness their relationship with the great statesmen and general for political purposes. Overall though Augustus was a great commander in his own right, given the fact that he was able to defeat his enemies and establish sole control.

The point is the republic was pretty much dead at this point. Even before Caesar the republic teetered on the edge of collapse and crisis for nearly a century prior. The principles that the republic had been built on; e.g. law, order, etc, had been thrown aside by violence and power of the masses. One of the greatest statesmen of all time, and a man born out of time, Cicero, was no opposition to this change; in Milo's trial for the murder of Clodius, Cicero wasn't even able to finish his speech before disorder halted him. Buildings in the city were being burned, and the Senate had made Pompeius sole consul.

Don't forget that years before Caesar famously led an army into Rome, Sulla had done just that. Of course he was not condemned by the Senate, as he was an advocate for their ideals versus the supporters of Marius. Under Sulla the above mentioned Pompeius got his start by becoming one of the richest people in Rome, by being paid handsomely for the people he rounded up and killed for Sulla.

Note this is a pretty short explanation all things considered (and I can answer any questions you may have), but long story short, the republic's collapse was imminent. It had failed to successfully govern by that point, and its politics had fueled the century long conflict between the populares and the optimates that had led to Caesar in the first place. Maybe no Octavian would delay the inevitable at least.