Did Romans recognise the fall of the republic?

[AureliusFalco]

SigniferOne wrote
There's no question that the great families were aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic; but what you had originally painted them as were non-ideological, class-conscious power-mongers. Plus even their aristocratic ancestry derived from service to the Republic, so all of their claims to nobility could be subsumed under that one ideological thing. They weren't after power, they were after dignitas, when in fact only a few, the corrupt people like Verres or Catiline, were after power as such

I don't believe I said that the great Senatorial families of the Republic were non-ideological power-mongers. I believe the opposite:most(if not all) Senators of the early to mid-Republic were extremely dedicated to the Republic and her ideals. However I did say that they had more power than under the Principate. Now if,as you say, it was dignitas they were after,how is that different than power? If a man was respected, honored and had such a great personal reputation that he could advance as high as he wanted in the Res Publica, how does that not translate to power. Why else did Romans view their dignitas with such importance? Because the more dignitas one could claim to have, the higher one could clime in the Res Publica. However,under the Principate, not only did you need to have great dignitas, but you also needed an Emperors favor. If you received an Emperors favor, there is no doubt you could raise higher(and have more power) than the most important Consul during the republic. But it still depended on how much the Emperor favored you; If he didn't want you to have a certain position, you were unlikely to get it.And as for being class-conscious, the Romans were concerned with the mixing of classes: why else did they pass laws forbidding patricians to marry plebians? Now within the patrician class there weren't different classes but there were different levels of patrician. Why was Octavian's marriage to Livia Drusilla so important? Because she was descended from the Claudii and that family had greater dignitas than either the Octavii or the Julii.

SigniferOne wrote
This is actually one of the revolts I cited as well. They didn't have the support of the Praetorians but they did take over the Capitoline Hill, and established the republic until Claudius' legions battered down the gates.

I believe you quoted the years 41,65,and 175 as years the senate rose in revolt. I was not aware the Senate revolted in 41; Cassius Chaerea assassinated Caligula(with the knowledge of some senators) and the senate took advantage of the situation and debated restoring the republic(Btw, where did you hear about legions battering down the gates of the Capitoline? I can honestly say I can find no reference to it). In 65 the conspiracy of Gaius Calpurnius Piso wasn't aimed at restoring the Republic or a senatorial revolt. Indeed it had members from both(i.e. imperialist and republican) parties and ostensibly aimed at putting Piso on the throne. In 175 when Avidius Cassius revolted,it was on a rumor that Marcus Aurelius had died. And even then,when Cassius rose in revolt, the Senate denounced him and ordered his death! The senate as a body obviously didn't support him. Also, if Cassius was such a die-hard republican,why did he proclaim himself Emperor?(On a side note, I recently read that the part of the Historia Augusta that covers the revolt of Avidius Cassius may be more reliable than other parts. I apologize for doubting the quote from that source,but I had never heard anything good about it)