Does anyone know what the academic consensus is on how accurate

nobody can really know. if you enjoy reading it thats all that counts.

>>1650738
>nobody can really know.

That's why I mentioned "academic consensus" rather than "the truth". I get that most classical history is foggy at best.

>if you enjoy reading it thats all that counts.

I'll probably continue reading it even if he's full of shit, it's just good to know.

>>1650748
here you go friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars#Reliability

also you should read tacitus too anyway; there isnt reafly much on this period.

File: Plutarch - Fall of the Roman Republic (Penguin, 2005).jpg (134KB, 753x1162px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 753x1162px

Ive heard Suetonius isn't the most reliable historically. Still a great writer though. Here are some other historians;
Appian
Aurelius Victor
Cassius Dio
Plutarch
Tacitus
Pliny
Livy
Josephus
Julius Caesar(Not historian obviously but his commentaries are excellent)