I think there's ample evidence from alternative points of view. Cicero for example was an avowed Caesar hater, but even he tells us how bent on war the Pompieans were, and the extent to which they were rejecting patently reasonable compromises. I genuinely ask; what more exactly could Caesar have done to avoid a war? It seems clear he wanted peace. Even pro-Caesarean writers, like Hirtius, were also pragmatists who were inherently conservative. After the war Hirtius didn't try to punish the supposed "Liberators", preferring compromises to try and avoid a catastrophic civil war, and his surviving work (the final segment of the Gallic Wars) is very favourable to Caesar (and sheds light of Labienus character hirtherto unknown, probably concealed by Caesar so it didn't reflect poorly on him). I just don't see the evidence of the Boni's fears as rational either. They had been totally unfounded to that point, and the guy wanted to run for consul then go fight another war overseas. Where is the harm to Rome from that? Remember, the Boni had been claiming Caesar was going to overthrow the state for over a decade by that point, and every time it didn't bear fruit. Did he use the armies he got after being Praetor and Consul to immediately overthrow the state? No. He used them to go fight Rome's enemies. All indications are he wanted to be consul, then go do that some more. It was the same career path of glory and generalling so many great Romans had followed (Pompey included). Even when he's forced into power, his actions are not indicative of a guy trying to wipe out opposition; he was pardoning enemies and appointing them to office so they would buy into everyone working together. I just don't see the characterization as accurate (especially not when their champion Pompey was the guy with the far more criminal career, who had subverted the state for personal gain repeatedly; if they can work with Pompey why not Caesar too? It seems personal enmity was the only issue here).