One argument against the claim that Julius Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic is that the Republic was already in a state of severe decline and crisis before Caesar's rise. The political instability, social unrest, and breakdown of traditional Republican institutions had been ongoing for decades, with significant damage done by earlier figures such as Sulla, who had already undermined the Republic's foundations. Caesar's actions can be seen more as a symptom or result of the Republic's long-term decay rather than the sole cause of its fall. In this view, Caesar did not set up the imperial succession or fully dismantle the Republic; rather, he operated within a system that was already failing and exacerbated by deep-rooted problems that no single individual could have resolved

. Additionally, some historians argue that the true end of the Republic came with Augustus, who established dynastic rule, marking the fatal transformation from Republic to Empire. Caesar's dictatorship was a pivotal moment, but the Republic's demise was a complex process involving many factors and actors over time

. Thus, the argument holds that Caesar was more a product of the Republic's decline than its destroyer.