The portrait of Caesar that emerges from Plutarch is multi dimensional, not merely a tyrant intent on imposing his will on the citizens of Rome, nor a beneficent ruler whose charity could be mistaken for weakness by his enemies. Instead, Plutarch portrays Caesar as ambitious and arrogant, but also capable of wisdom in his leadership and of providing a unifying force that, in his absence, became a void filled immediately by civil war.
As portrayed by Plutarch, Caesar was a charismatic leader who inspired his followers, particularly the military, through his personal characteristics. This type of leadership is often identified with kings and emperors as their absolute authority derives in part from their ability to convey personal magnetism. If their personal authority falters, so too does their rule, a situation which presidents and prime ministers do not face directly since they are elected to pre-defined terms and must govern as part of a coalition.
Caesar also recognized that his informal power needed to be translated into formal power if he is to become emperor, which is the office to which he aspires. The empire was in flux, and Caesar's popularity was quite strong due, in large part, to the communication skills of Caesar himself; however, most of the population cannot vote, and so Caesar must use this informal popularity as a fulcrum to develop support among the monied elite who have it within their power to support him. Despite this recognition of the need for public acceptance, Shakespeare gives us a Caesar who tends to keep his own counsel. He is warned by a soothsayer as well as his own wife that he should not go to the Senate on the Ides of March, yet he ignores these warnings, confident in his own judgment despite the advice of his advisors. While great leaders sometimes ignore their advisors, or at least take courses other than those recommended to them, more often leaders take the advice of their trusted aids ...