[sima_yi]

I wasn't referring to the fall of the Empire, but rather the fall of the Republic.

Gaius Julius Caesar was a member of the populares, what we today would call a populist. He was opposed by the senatorial establishment, again, much of what we see today.

Of course, the parallels are not exact, but in broad outline (members of the government using the government to enrich themselves, for example), they are.

[BroJoeK]

sima_yi: "I wasn't referring to the fall of the Empire, but rather the fall of the Republic."

Ah, so we're talking about the Ides of March, not Attila the Hun?
Then my bad, and I agree with the analysis here.

But would also add a thought: the Roman Republic was a victim of its own success.
It simply was not intended or designed to rule the largest, most diverse empire yet seen.
And the old Republic did not entirely disappear, for example, the Senate continued long after Rome's empire had disappeared.