I don't really like asking for help on essays or any other university work on this, but I don't want any research done or the answers. I'm just looking to understand the question!... It's a resit summer essay as I failed the first time round, so I can't go to my tutor for help as he is away at the moment... Basically, the question is this: Did the Roman Republic commit suicide or was it murder? I don't know what angle to take this from. Which would be considered suicidal forces and which outside factors that can be counted as murder? From my knowledge of the end of the Republican period it was a Civil War, so in a way one could argue that it was suicide. However, can Caesar be considered an outside factor and thus the one who did commit the murder? Basically I just want to understand this flippin question in the most logical way... I can't really afford to answer the wrong question! Thanks a lot for your help. Sorry if this is annoying, moderators delete if not appropriate. I'll probably be calling tomorrow and seeing if someone from the department can clarify the question.
I think the question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the Roman Republic would have fallen anyway if Caesar hadn't stepped in to conquer and declare himself Emperor. If you think the Republic would have collapsed anyway, then you're talking about suicide. But if you believe that the Republic would have endured, then Caesar was an usurper and essentially murdered the old Republic. Personally, I lean towards the suicide argument, but when in doubt pick the side you feel that you can support with more compelling facts.
I guess I was thinking there might be a difference between suicide and being at fault for your death. The former requires some form of positive action, whereas the latter would involve aspects of the republic itself (for example policy) that in the end meant inevitable downfall. I guess I am reading into it too much!
Interesting question and one that has been debated since the Roman Empire. I would say that suicide is more likely than murder as there were various forces in the Roman Republic that were leading it towards empire, such as the difficulty of governing a rapidly expanding territory, the prominent role the military played, class conflict and the increasing concentration of power within smaller groups such as triumverates. While certainly some considered Julius Ceasar a usurper and rising above the Senate it should be considered that many of those that killed Ceasar in the Senate were seeking to rule themselves. Also following the triumph of Octavius most of the Romans were more than willing to accept an emperor rather than seek to return to a republic. IMO whether Julius Ceasar would've ceased power or not someone would've and the Roman Republic on it own would've become an Empire so I don't buy the idea that Ceasar murdered the Republic. He happened to be at the right time to take advantage of the forces leading towards empire.
Don't get bogged down in all the ways you can interpret the question. If your prof is honest, then there's no right answer. That new guy just layed out the divide well. Pick the one you're most comfortable with and answer it as forcefully as you can and use as many facts as possible to back up your answer.
