Caldrail may have some reason on his side in the above post. But: A 'born' autocrat? Wasn't his co-consul (Bibulus?) always looking for omens rather than doing some work (another reason why the Republic had to go)? It seems to me that if the institutions of the Republic were working, there might not have arisen a Caesar. Or a need for a Caesar.
"Given that the republic was becoming unable to contain individual initiative, then after the civil wars it was almost certain that someone would rise to become dictator/emperor/monarch - whatever title you want to call it. Autocratic rule was unpopular with senior romans. It meant they couldn't share in power for one thing. So unless the individual rising to the fore was powerful enough and popular enough, then the civil wars would have continued, or some very bloody intrigue at the very least. For that reason, I agree that the republic was doomed by its own failure, and sooner or later autocratic rule was going to replace the roman oligarchy. As later history shows, a lesser man simply led to another power struggle and continued instability."-----Caldrail.