It is because of Plutarch having "Hero's" that we must be careful when analysing his work especially when Caesar is involved. M. Grant goes on to explain how Plutarch was a "Hero-worshiper, who looks at great men as a race apart" and this resulted in "superficial judgment that brings him perilously close to wholly unhistorical writers". Examples of this can be seen in Plutarch's work, such as "And the period of those wars which he now fought, and those many expeditions in which he subdued Gaul, showed him to be a soldier and general not in the least inferior to any of the greatest and most admired commanders who had ever appeared at the head of armies." And "For if we compare him with the Fabii, the Metelli, the Scipios, and with those who were his contemporaries, or not long before him, Sylla, Marius, the Luculli, or even Pompey himself, whose glory, it may be said, went up at that time to heaven for every excellence in war, we shall find Caesar's actions to have surpassed them all." We must also question how Plutarch could possibly know what exactly Caesar was thinking at that point in time. Surly 100 years after the event no one present there would be alive and even if he did get a first hand account, Caesar would have surly tried to hide the fact, after he won, that he was indecisive about continuing on into Italy. Another fact to consider is that Plutarch, and most of our sources on Caesar wrote in the Julio Claudio period which extended almost 150years after Caesars death so anything too negative wouldn't have been accepted lightly as the emperors in the period regarded Caesar as almost there founding father and the saviour of the Republic. This brings up another point of concern, if all the sources on Caesar originate from this period, do we really have a clear un-bias picture of Caesar or not.
The above source is relatively useful when looking at Caesar himself. It provides us with a slightly negative view of him which most ancient writers don't do.