In honor of the Ides of March (which was yesterday, given) and the fact that Julius Caesar was killed 1,971 years ago on the floor of the Roman Senate, I thought it'd be fitting to make a thread about him. Specifically the play vs. actual history. Now, the play as I understand it, portrayed Caesar as a man who believed himself untouchable, that if anything bad was to happen to him, then it was Fate playing a hand. Brutus, for his part, had some difficulty deciding if he needed to murder Caesar out of a perceived idea that he was a threat to Rome. I personally disagree because from what I read in Caesar's actions and words, he came off as a simple leader with an ego natural to his station. And honestly, would you believe an old guy if he randomly went up to you crying out to beware a certain date? Likely not. To sum up my view, the whole thing could've been easily resolved within five minutes had Brutus simply talked with Caesar about his ambitions (and warned him of an assassination attempt.) I'm curious as to how the actual historical event matches up to Shakespeare's version of the event. Did Historical!Brutus murder Caesar due to some misguided sense of duty for his nation, out of fear that Caesar was about to become something that would be harmful to Rome? Did Shakespeare faithfully portray Caesar as he was in history, or did he add/subtract certain elements to produce the Caesar we know from the play? Discuss!