It sort of is. She made up details, and puts her own slant on things. In other places she actually changes stuff based on her own assumptions of character and logistics. For instance, she completely rearranges the details of the trial of Rabirus, because in her opinion, since an overweight, elderly woman could not make the walk through the streets of a large city from the site of the trial to the location of the Janiculum, Cicero could not have spontaneously ordered the red flag, because it would have been impossible for veterans of the greatest infantry in the history of the world to cross an open plan more quickly to carry out Cicero's orders. Instead, the whole thing was arranged beforehand by Caesar, who played both sides because he was just that brilliant. She goes WAY overboard in lauding the praises of the guy who overthrew a constitutional republic to take a military dictatorship. She goes out of her way to portray an alternative explanation of Caesar's homosexual relationships, and renders every political opponent of Caesar into an idiot, thug or greedy plutocrat. His allies are all wise statesmen of high character, of course.

It's been a while since I read the series, which I eventually gave up on, due to the increasing degree of hagiography, so there are a lot of things I don't recall, but the examples I mentioned stick out. I liked it up until he showed up (although in hindsight, the fawning really started with his mother).