To what extent did ambitious generals, loving power more than Rome itself, destroy the republic?

The decline and eventual fall of the Roman Republic can indeed be partly attributed to the actions of ambitious generals who valued personal power over the welfare of Rome itself. Key figures can be traced through the late stages of the Republic, each playing a critical role in destabilizing the political infrastructure which had governed Rome for centuries.

Generals such as Gaius Marius, Sulla, Pompey the Great, and Julius Caesar were central to this transition. For instance, Marius, who was elected consul seven times, implemented significant military reforms that unintentionally increased loyalty of the soldiers to their generals rather than the Roman state. Sulla, in his quest for power, marched on Rome, overthrew the government, and became dictator, thereby setting a precedent that personal military power could trump civic authority.

Following Sulla, Pompey the Great became influential due to his military successes and entered into a political alliance known as the First Triumvirate with Julius Caesar and Crassus. This power-sharing mechanism was inherently unstable, serving the ambitions of the three men over the Republic’s long-term stability.

Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River with his army in 49 BC was a direct challenge to the authority of the Senate and led to a civil war from which he emerged as dictator. His assumption of perpetual dictatorship, and subsequent assassination in 44 BC, showed the extent to which the lust for power had overshadowed the principles of republican governance.

The power struggles between generals, the corruption, and the incessant civil wars ultimately created a vacuum of power that was filled by Octavian, later known as Augustus, who became the first Roman Emperor. By transitioning to the principate system, the facade of the old Republic was maintained but the actual control lay firmly in the hands of one ruler, marking the end of the Roman Republic.