Canfora’s (2007) assessment is an accurate analysis of the evidence with Syme (1939) and Taylor (1949) agreeing that this prompted Caesar’s invasion of Italy.
It would be inappropriate to base an assessment of Caesar’s character solely on the representation in The Civil War.
Syme (19) notes though that these people were not unusual appointments and that the majority would have had property and wealth.
However, the appointing of non-Romans to situations of high office would have been unacceptable.
Although any freeborn Roman could attempt a political career the oligarchy ensured a man without ancestors could not rise further than the praetorship; guarding admission to the Senate and the consulship (Syme, 19).
The oligarchy had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in order to protect wealth and land, and stop political revolutionary activity.
However, Caesar, like Sulla before him, changed the approach to appointing senators using his dictatorial authority to place whomever he wanted within the Senate (Wiseman, 190).
Caesar’s use of the dictatorial power to subvert the route normally required for such an appointment may have been an abuse of his authority.
Most of the evidence used is not contemporary to Caesar so there will be limitations in establishing its accuracy and validity.
Where possible accounts of other authors and contemporaries of Caesar’s will support assertions made.