Did Romans recognise the fall of the republic?

[Nathan Ross]

I do wonder though why in 69 CE an attempt wasn't made then? Was it because there was always a Emperor on the throne,and so the Senate was never given the chance?

Interestingly, there does seem to have been a brief outbreak of republican insurrection in 69, but it didn't come from the senate. We only have Tacitus to go on, with the usual caveats about translations and the historian's own partisan appraisal, but it does appear that the concept of the republic was not entirely dead amongst the soldiers of the Rhine army at Mainz:

...the Fourth and Twenty-second legions... on the very first of January smashed their statues of Galba... and they called in their oath on the obselete names of the Senate and People of Rome that they might not seem to give up allegiance to the empire. (Tacitus, Histories, I.55)

Tacitus finds the phrase 'obselete' (at the time he was writing, perhaps, under Trajan?), but clearly the citizen soldiers of the IV and XXII found it quite comprehensible, and worthy of their oath. We're inclined, I think, looking through the eyes of historians like Tacitus, to regard the Roman army as a mob of unprincipled mercenaries: I don't think it impossible, though, that at least some of the legionaries at Mainz had a political consciousness. Their 'allegiance to the empire' is perhaps a bit misleading: surely what they were demonstrating was their allegiance to the Roman state, and to a conception of that state as existing without the figure of an emperor at its head.

This possible idealism doesn't last long, though:

On the night of January first, an eagle-bearer of the Fourth legion came to Cologne and reported to Vitellius at his dinner that the Fourth and Twenty-second legions had thrown down Galba's statues and taken the oath of allegiance to the Senate and People of Rome. As such an oath seemed meaningless, it seemed best to seize the critical moment and offer an emperor to the soldiery. Vitellius sent men to the legions and legates to announce that the Upper army had mutinied anything Galba: therefore they must either fight against the mutineers or, if they preferred harmony and peace, make an emperor for themselves. There was less danger, he added, in chosing an emperor than in looking for one.(Tacitus, Histories 1.57)

That last note probably explains why any attempt at republican restoration would be doomed - once the idea of sole imperial rule takes hold, it cannot be abolished! Sure enough, the soldiers' sentiments are quickly swayed: Vitellius' commander Fabius Valens enters Cologne and salutes Vitellius emperor.

The legions of the same province showed the greatest rivalry in following this example; and the army of Upper Germany, dropping the fine-sounding titles of the Senate and People of Rome, came over to Vitellius on the third of January, which clearly showed that on the two previous days they were not really at the disposal of a republican government..." (Tacitus, Histories 1.55-57)

That last phrase in bold is tricky - "speciosis senatus populique Romani nominibus relictis, tertium nonas Ianuarias Vitellio accessit: scires illum priore biduo non penes rem publicam fuisse" - the older translation by Church and Brodribb states that the soldiers "had not really been the army of the State". Don't know if anyone could suggest whether Tacitus is actually invoking 'republican government' here or not... But if he is, might the soldiers have indeed claimed to be loyal to such an entity?

- Nathan