Was Julius Caesar's Rome better than what the senators had

Ideally, no.
In reality, yes.


The optimates had great ideals for their vision of Rome but in actuality, if power wasn't centralized it all likely would have fallen apart.

The provincial governors were basically becoming rulers unto themselves and if something wasn't down about it Rome would've fractured.

Not to mention the optimates had little interest in fixing the various issues plaguing the plebs, largely because those issues were at the direct benefit of them.

>>2210145
>senators
Depends on the senator. The likes of Cicero and Metellus Pius might have had good ideals, but Pompey? Crassus? They just wanted to abuse the system for their own gain and glory.
Remember, roman factionalism was extremely personalized. The optimates/populares split meant very little ideologically by Caesar's time. Just look at how Pompey and his dad kept shifting between leading one faction or the other.
Also it's not very clear whether Caesar actually wanted to create an empire. Most roman leaders before the empire wanted just to be first man in Rome, and be the foremost political power within the senate. Being the actual king/emperor/consul meant little to them. Afterall the likes of Scipio, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Anthony basically managed to do whatever the fuck they wanted even without a crown on their head and an actual position to occupy. They ruled by influence and traditional clientelism.

>>2210145
>he sounds like a man of principle
Oh also, top kek at this. Cicero was a fucking wheather vane.

Post Marius and Sulla's civil war, it was pretty clear it would never return to normal.

>falling for Kikero's bullshit