I would concur that Caesar, probably, wasn't the friendliest of persons according to our standards, and that his account of his own wars, manifestly, is only correct up to a point. Nonetheless I cannot subscribe to the view that Caesar was a destroyer, a madman, a brute, or whatever other qualification may be seen fit, despite the atrocities which may be ascribed to him. It may be a commonplace, but: one must consider a man in his times. Caesar was a relatively
pious man, refined, lauded even by Cicero for his oratorial skills, his military skills beyond reproach (the value of the latter may in general, I agree, be questioned, yet the degree in which he utterly conquered Western Europe, ultimately much to its own benefit, and in which he subdued rebellious "provinces", bespeaks a certain brilliance). In contrast with several of his "predecessors", he, when he had, materially, obtained the position of dictator, was, as far as I know, less intent on "getting even" with those who had hindered him in the past. Certainly cruel in war (weren't they all?), he wasn't quite as vindictive in times of (comparative) quiet.
Furthermore, it has been said that Caesar's interests congrued to a great extent with that of the Roman state. The republican model didn't appear to work very well for the Romans. The senate was an elite group, comprising mostly people more intent on promoting their own interests than those of the state, whose policy was, in fact, rather pernicious to the state. When in power, Caesar implemented a series of reformations, which were, as far as I know, beneficial to the Romans and their provinces, while he, at the same time, tried to appease conservative forces. In the latter, of course, he, as we know, didn't quite succeed entirely.
Anyway, I might divagate on his artistic merits. To my tastes, Caesar's Latin is most satisfactory.
I would, by the way, if you per chance do stumble upon the source of the view that Caesar didn't even conceive B. G. and B. C., be interested to know about it.