I'm in the middle of research for a project and found myself stumped. In Revolutionary France, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain, (secularised, or enlightened) Holy Roman Empire/Austrian Empire, Italian city states, how would the Roman Republic have been viewed by any of these various people?
I'm mostly interested in the 1780s-1790s Irish upper middle class/upper class republicans, but a general idea of the time would help. I want to know would the scholars and upper class have referred to it as the "Roman Republic/Roman Empire", and what was their view on the transition from republic to empire under Caesar and Octavian (Augustus)?
Any book on the topic would be really helpful?
I guess this question is more of a history of history kind of question. My answer will be extrapolated from what limited amount of secondary sources I know of that comes from the 18th century, but I presume that during those times, texts were shared and translated freely. I would assume that the kinds of people who would read about Roman history all read similar texts with similar theses in all of those countries.
If we're talking about the 18th century, perhaps the most obvious and well-known source is Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He characterizes the fall of Rome as a slow descent caused by the decadence of the Roman/Eastern Roman courts, but as a disclaimer, I've never read the volumes myself. All I know about it comes from my Byzantine history professor (who would of course disagree that Rome's grandeur became tainted over a thousand years of decadence).
This theme of grandeur and decadence is also found in Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline by Montesquieu, which is often cited as the inspiration for Gibbon's own work. The interesting contrast that made Roman historians differ from the historiography of the time is that they did not adapt a progressive view of human history. The fall of the Roman Empire was a great event of regression -- leading to the well known perception of the medieval times as being the "dark ages" (though this itself traces back all the way to Petrarch during the Renaissance period).
You should read these two if you haven't already; the feeling I get from Montesquieu is that the greatness of Rome is what actually caused the decay. As the city expanded and more territories came under Roman rule, the harmony of the state was disrupted by the increasing number of non-Romans. The collapse of the republic was then attributed to the disruption of the main body, the city of Rome (which loved liberty, hated tyranny, and so on...). The transition to empire thus allowed tyranny to seep in (Tiberius, Caligula, Domitian, and on) and cause the decline. To add on, it was the character of the Romans that became corrupted; Montesquieu and other historians of the time made moral judgments on groups of peoples rather than on the actions of individuals themselves.
Hope this helps.