It has been said here that the "destruction" of the Roman Republic must be taken in context -- it wasn't much of a Republic, just as Athens wasn't, in effect, much of a Democracy. Given the restrictions on voting in Classical Athens, the actual number of policy-makers in the citizen body was significantly smaller than the title "demokratia" would suggest. Similarly, although the government was "Public affairs," Roman political culture was decidedly in favor of the aristocrats -- and that's true, I believe, from the very beginning to the very end, with a qualification. In the beginning, the independent farmers held the power, while by the end, it was the owners of the large latifundia.

A question that is, perhaps, the same as the one being asked here is whether the end of the Republic was the chance happening of a political rivalry gone haywire or a slow degenerative process.

I see it this way: I do not blame the senate (as some prefer to) for the fall of the Republic, simply because the political culure and constitution they opperated within was coping with completely different circumstances than it was intended for. There is no ammendation process, because the Roman constitution is more than just the Twelve Tablets, it's a system of customs and traditions. A custom cannot be "voted" on -- it was, therefore, very difficult to adapt a largely pastoral/militaristic mindset to an imperial/cosmopolitan/militaristic society. The wars and constitution left the poor inactive and restless, destroyed the social foundation of the Republic, and ultimately led to the great rift between optimates and populares.

Was the senate short-sighted? I think so, but I do not think that neccessarily condemns them -- Marius was farsighted, as was Sulla (yes, despite his reactionary tendencies), and both men irrevocably accelerated the process! The Gracchi were farsighted, but Tiberius's bid for another tribuneship and his silencing of a fellow tribune are as destructive tendencies as the Senate's murdering of him and his brother. Further, I don't think the Gracchi reforms would have worked, but that's another story.

I don't think Caesar was the root cause of the revolutionary atmosphere. But -- that point of view does not neccessarily mean that all followed a predetermined path starting after the Hannibalic Wars! The First Triumvirate, in itself, appears only as a very potent political alliance, but nothing more. The difficulty in assessing Caesar's importance is that almost everything he did had political precedence in Sulla -- from the military take over to the proclamation of dictator for life. Indeed, one might argue that Julius Caesar had nothing to do with the fall of the Republic. Things might have progressed similarly to what happened after Sulla's death, except for the problem that the Senate didn't have enough initiative to take advantage of the Ides of March -- Sulla had personally crafted an elite corps to control the Roman State after he died, but with the death of Caesar, it was Antony and Octavian who stepped in to fill his position.