I recently listened to Parenti's lecture on Caesar's rise to power. He makes many claims in it that contradict the portrait of Caesar painted by my educators. Classes hardly focused on the domestic politics of Rome, so I can't make heads or tails of his perspective. Caesar was always made to be a brilliant general who exploited his armies faith in him to coup the republic and become dictator without popular mandate. Parenti's commentary almost makes me sympathetic to his rule however, especially considering the harsh living conditions of the average Roman.

What does Parenti get right? What does he get incorrect? And is his perspective a useful lense when viewing historical moments?

Edit: Parenti also depicts Roman politicians as ineffectual rulers who treated campaigning as a popularity contest rather than having policy goals. What similarities can be drawn between modern democracies and this period of Roman politics?