Was Caesar the death of the Republic?

[stevesarak]

Just to take the other side, [/quite]

...because in your heart you agree with me :wink:

Do you mean, do I believe that the corruption of the governing body of Rome to think first of their own political power and personal success over the peoples needs led to a corrupt government that was doomed to fail?

For the sake of this discussion I’ll hold my thoughts on that.

the precedent Sulla set emboldened Caesar to take the steps he did against Pompey and also emboldened other figures of the late republic to use force to sieze political power.

Is that so or did Caesar do it out of necessity? What were his alternatives, ambitious Caesar was going to be a simple private citizen and face possible prosecution. His whole life was geared for success, and with so many enemies in the senate, once he came back, his political career was over. Even if Sulla had never been dictator and set precedents, would Caesar have moved against Rome?

I think a lot of the pressures of Roman expansion over the preceding century also played a part in destroying the republic.

The pressure driving people to expand territories for the rewards the came with success of a new conquest or the pressure on Rome from the power that the individual generals held or the pressure of political upheaval with acquiring new territories?

Rome never found a way to refine her republican form of government to meet the changing situation and instead wound up with a permanent military dictatorship.

Or did Rome, still young in developing a sound political government, not have enough checks and balances to allow people to acquire to much military power, or did you just say that?