Even thought the conversation seems to have been closed, I just wanted to address the above real quick.Regarding his opinions, one that Caesar was gay and, two that he faked his death. I do not know about the second, but the first is a misnomer. Caesar was not gay, as such. What we call today 'gay' was differently regarded in the times we call antiquity. From my fairly inaccurate general knowledge , because it is difficult to know with certainty, regular and refined features in a man that might apply to the notion of a woman's beauty of were highly appreciated in a man's appearance. Sexual relations were not equated to marriage between a man and a woman and marriage itself was more a transactional affair rather than a moral social institution.
With this understanding of the aesthetic preferences and habitual sexual practices roman society in antiquity, today, many people would have an instantaneous 'Eww' reaction. For me Julius Caesar was an important historical figure for many different reasons. So, what if he was what we call today 'gay', I say good for him, if that made him happy. Certainly, the revelation makes no difference for me today.
Even if you're correct Ina, then why bring it up? if, for argument's sake, it was an accepted behavioral pattern, then it bears no mention. It's like if I titled an article "Abraham Lincoln rode a horse whilst wearing a ridiculously outdated (by today's standard) hat!" I think that's one of the first red flags that I saw with his writing, not only would he be placing today's standard on historical events, which is a mistake, but he's doing so knowing it'll cause shock and controversy.
And controversy is looking for clicks, which might be his primary goal, which then creates a motive for his declaration to be true, which then reduces the likability of him pursuing the truth. I am reminded of Sherlock Holme's quote about twisting facts to suit the theory instead of its opposite.
I agree that dismissing someone outright isn't a good idea as there might be a bit of information that is useful, but to echo Laura's point, one has to at least be aware of the writer's intention and in his case, if one is to read him, one has to be aware of his tendency to write historical gossip as tabloids and celeb magazines would, "Caesar confirmed Gay, read all about it!! and is he really dead? Shocking anonymous sources say otherwise! (pg. 35)"
Does that make sense?