Weighing in a bit late on this topic, but I think it needs to be said that there is a danger in trying to read too much into historical records. Psychohistorians such as Eric Ericsen wrote bios of Hitler, but I'm not sure we have enough to go on, in attempting to do this sort of thing with Caesar.

If you look at the cast of characters surrounding Caesar you will see men similar in temperament, disposition, ambition and will to the companions/diadochi of Alexander of Macedon. The comparison is an apt one. These fellows were all BIG SHOTS, players at the highest levels of government, all of whom were being marshalled/held in check, "governed" (if you will) by a personality which was more than equal to the task of dominating them in a means which was constructive to the stability of an otherwise deteriorating state (or in the case of Alexander, the stability of the multinational polyglot he as attempting to forge).

I wonder whether some of the impetus for the attack on Caesar might not have arisen from the impulse enunciated in Milton:

"It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heav'n."

Just my .02

Quint