> who destroyed what was left of the Roman republic Somebody else would've done it instead. It was a semi-permanent state of civil strife or even war for the p

> who destroyed what was left of the Roman republic Somebody else would've done it instead. It was a semi-permanent state of civil strife or even war for the past 100 years or. From the perspective of Roman (or even ordinary Romans) aristocrats Ceasar was much preferably to other tyrants they had like Sulla, Cinna, Gaius Marius or even Augustus because he wasn't really into mass murdering his political enemies or sacking Roman/Italian cities. Not that this did him any good in the end, he failed because he was to 'merciful' and not genocidal enough towards other Romans. Not that he had similar concerns about Celts and other 'barbarians'? But I don't think the was particularly inherently more cruel or geocidal than most other conquering generals at the time (Cesar was just massively more successful so had the opportunity to murder/enslave a much larger number of people than anyone else). However what the Romans did to Carthage or some Greek cities etc. was no different.