He was also heavily biased against the ceasarion populist factions and almost always accepted the narrative given by the optimates. By the end he was laying it thick that Trump and Ceasar is the same sort of person.
Of course he fails to see how that is extremely based
Which is so bizarre given the anti-Ceasarians (Optimates technically didn't exist as a political faction but the historiography of the Roman Republican is neither here nor there) are exactly what he speaks against at the end of the July Revolution video, and arguably even worse. The Roman Republic had no history of violent revolutions (sans Sullan Civil War, the Gracchi, Marian Proscriptions) that at least in terms of comparison to the French Revolution were not violent social upheavals and in every single case the status quo conservatives putting down any reformist tendencies that would have preserved the Roman Senatorial system as it was for at least a few more generations.
He seems to fall into this group of people who romanticize the Late Republic despite how entrenched the corruption, general elitism, and class zealotry were. Even the Novo Homo from Marius and Sulla's time saw themselves as above the useless plebs begging for extensions to the Grain Dole and access to farmland bought up by a handful of wealthy Patricians to be turned into what were effectively plantations. And these are plantations that would make our modern corporate farms blush with how much power they held.
I'm fine with people believing that everything Caesar did was a cynical power move and he never really was a Populares, I mean he certainly did embellish his achievements and act outside of the law, but acting like he was the only one is absurd. Pompey isn't as great as he made himself out to be either. Boiling down Late Roman politics into good and bad like he seems to do isn't just wrong, it's fucking retarded because that stage of Roman history is more complex. Saying Caesar was just pretending to be a Populares and only cared about power, in my opinion at least, is wrong. If that was the case, he wouldn't have gone as far as he did with social reforms once he had actual power, and he didn't want to fight out a civil war in the first place. It was the Optimates who started the civil war by basically threatening every angle of lawfare against him, something Caesar knew too well.
Background, Caesar was a sitting senator during the Catiline Conspiracies (That he may have been attached to) that resulted in several close friends being executed. He was the nephew of Gaius Marius and due to that relation was at risk of being proscribed by Sulla when he seized Rome from the Marians. His family had a legacy of association with Populare figures like the Marius above. If Caesar was power hungry he simply would have joined rank with the Optimates or become another Sulla and proscribe everyone once he became dictator for life during his civil war (Which he should have done, would have saved his life).
TLDR Fuck the Optimates, the only thing Caesar did wrong was not kill them all.
Sorry for the essay, I could sperg about the Roman Republic all day if I wanted to.
Edit: Long Story short, it's clear that Historia Civilis buys into the End of History narrative intentionally or more likely unintentionally that all of human history is a long road to progress and that any deviation from that path is an aberration that must be destroyed. Especially when you consider how the Post-Revolutionary France middle-class emerged as a new power-elite and were arguably only fighting the aristocrats to preserve their new position at the top of French society.
