As much as Caesar acted out of self-aggrandizement, his was much more calculated than Alexander's.

First, look at what Alexander did: conquered, as Publius said, very far east. Caesar did not, he saw what his limits were, and stopped at them. I think Alex goes to the point of random butchery to glorify war for its own sake.

Caesar's wars all had purposes. Very specific purposes. In the end the two men probably warred about the same amount. But every war Caesar was involved in had some kind of goal. Whether it be political and relative to his position internally among his peers, or external and against enemies of Rome. Spain: settling provinces. Gaul: establishing a military reputation. The Civil War: maintaining his legally gained position (legal, I know, is debatable, but by this I mean he did not take power at the tip of a sword like his Uncle Sulla for instance, or even Pompey). Alexandria: international politics. Zela: insurrection.

As ive said before, Im no student of Alexander, but that is just the way his meandering across Asia looks. Especially when compared to Caesar. All of Caesar's fights had some objective. All I can see from Alex is glory. Unadulterated. For Caesar, the 'glory,' was institutionalized and a part of the career of a Roman. A dose of glory is necessary. Look at what Crassus did to build his name...

Of course, had he lived, he would have gone to Parthia. Some could argue that that is evidence of his busting ego. But, Ive read his reasons for attacking Parthia was for financial gain primarily. But who knows? Maybe when he got there it would have gone to his head and he mightve mimicked Alex and kept going. But I dont think so. He was too Roman. His home was Rome and I doubt if he could simply take off into the deserts and conquer aimlessly while Rome stews behind him for several years.