Reply #1: Just because we have no documents from the period of ancient

[lutherj]

Rome, doesn't mean they never existed. There are multiple references to Caesar in the works of various ancient historians as well as contemporaries, such as Cicero. We also have writings by Caesar. You might say that doesn't prove he existed, but isn't it a more reasonable inference than that all this stuff was made up by some cabal for future generations? After all, what proof do we have that George Washington existed? Just a bunch of papers and anecdotes. That could also have been made up.

I think historians understand that the further you go back into history the more difficult it is to separate fact from legend. Moreover, all history is created by historians to a certain degree. Historians have to choose what facts and details are relevant, and come up with plausible cause and effect scenarios that are necessarily a matter of interpretation.

For my part, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Julius Caesar existed. By the way, there is an excellent new book out by Michael Parenti, called the Assassination of Julius Caesar. It deals with the biases of historians, and tries to reconstruct Caesar's life by reading between the lines. I recommend it.