Adapting history into plays is recurring in Iran and the rest of the world. Analyzing the successful examples of these adaptations based on a specific framework could pave the way for others. Limiting to the extent that they stay historically relevant and neglecting literary criticism, leads to many aspects of them being excluded from the scope of the study. In this way, the basic question we face is how to dramatize a historical phenomenon and what characteristics a historical drama should observe. We want to explain this by examining an important Iranian historical drama based on a theoretical framework. The prominent Marxist critic, Georg Lukacs, in his book “Historical Novel” presents five components that a historical drama should observe including “facts of life”, “world-historical individuals”, “public character”, “translation into human terms” and “taking place in the present”. In this descriptive-analytical research, one of the most famous Iranian historical dramas, “the Death of Yazdgerd”, written by Bahram Bayzaei, will be discussed based on Lukacs’s view of “historical drama” and his five components.The findings of this study suggest that among the five components considered by Lukacs, four components, namely “facts of life”, “public character”, “translation into human terms” and “taking place in the present” can be found in Beyzai’s drama. And considerably, according to Beyzai’s approach to the history, the “taking place in the present” is more notable in his works. Basically, Beyzai deals with history to pinpoint something in his contemporary society.However, the most distinctive difference between his work and Lukacs’s components lies in the way that  “world-historical individuals” appear, because Lukacs believes that people close to the core of the power are suitable for the role of world-historical heroes because they are different and more exposed to the power Impact. But Beyzai chooses his heroes from ordinary people or low-ranking government officials. This is not a coincidence, but it is related to Beyzai’s approach to the history. One of the criticisms Beyzai imposes on traditional historiography is not to take ordinary people into account.