Republic - suicide or murder?

[Alexandros Oranje]

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? Is the question asking whether inside or outside forces caused the downfall? Policy that was structured to fall, or people that wanted it to die?

 

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.

[Klingan]

I would guess that you should see the structure as the political and social system as the suicide factor and the one's who executed the blow (aka Caesar and other strong individuals) as the murder part. Then, the question would be:

 

Was it systems structure that was inevitably flawed or was it strong individual that putted it to an end?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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? Is the question asking whether inside or outside forces caused the downfall? Policy that was structured to fall, or people that wanted it to die?

 

What a refreshing way to ask for help! Much better than the normal requests.

 

I think your understanding of the question is correct: Did the republic fall due to outside factors--such as Caesar's refusal to disband his army--or did it fall due to intrinsic factors--such as an inherent inability to respond to the demands of the imperial system?

 

We debate this question all the time. I agree with Gruen and Meier that Caesar murdered an otherwise healthy but imperfect republic; others agree with Brunt and Scullard that the system was "doomed" to collapse due to its inability to respond to the crises engendered by its acquisition of a vast empire.

 

Look forward to hearing your views after you're finished with your essay.

[Alexandros Oranje]

I would guess that you should see the structure as the political and social system as the suicide factor and the one's who executed the blow (aka Caesar and other strong individuals) as the murder part. Then, the question would be:

 

Was it systems structure that was inevitably flawed or was it strong individual that putted it to an end?

 

 

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!

[Alexandros Oranje]

We debate this question all the time. I agree with Gruen and Meier that Caesar murdered an otherwise healthy but imperfect republic; others agree with Brunt and Scullard that the system was "doomed" to collapse due to its inability to respond to the crises engendered by its acquisition of a vast empire.

 

Thanks very much for your help. I will see if I can get a hold of these books to help me further.

 

I will basically tackle this question as you both have suggested. Suicidal factors would be the intrinsic aspects of what defined the Republic. The Senate and its policies drawn to protect it, for example. Outside factors would be, in the end, Caesar. For me, this question is whether Ceasar's involvement was to such an extent that without him the Republic would have survived for a significant amount longer. Further to this one could also maybe explore why those that "saved" the Republic were not able to sustain it into the Augustan period.

[Primus Pilus]

A rather simple way to determine it I think...

 

Suicide would assume that the Republic purposely and willingly established conditions that destroyed itself. One must ask, did the legislative process of the assemblies or the deliberative processes of the Senate as a whole purposely enact conditions that brought about the downfall and establishment of monarchy. Certainly, there were many attempts to create or hold onto factional authority, but can an attempt to hold one's position of influence be equated to intentional suicide? Consider that a suicide can not truly take place without the intention of doing so... without intent, it is simply an accident.

 

Murder assumes that a person or group of people worked to establish conditions that brought about the end of the existing system, even if there was no intention to do so. One must consider that a murder can take place even without premeditation. It can be premeditated, a spur of the moment brash action, or an accidental accumulation of damage.

 

How the evidence is presented and proving the "who, what, when, how" of the choices is up to the writer of the essay. Even the justification of the actions and policies and which faction was "in the right" has often been hotly debated around here.